Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)Section 12 in The Airports Authority Of India Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Airports Authority Of India Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Airports Authority Of India Act, 1994
Section 21 in The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Pancham Chand And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 4 March, 2008
22. When adjudicating upon whether or not the Chief Minister has
any role to play in the allotment of Stage Carriage Permits, the
Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister‟s actions were in
derogation of statutory provisions. The application for grant of permit
under the Motor Vehicles Act had to be filed before an authority under
the same Act. The Court in Pancham Chand v State of Himachal
Pradesh (2008) 7 SCC 117 stated:
M/S. Raman & Raman Ltd vs The State Of Madras & Others on 18 February, 1959
In determining the scope of the power conferred on the
State Government in these two provisions, the Supreme Court in
Raman and Raman Ltd. v State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 594 stated:
Commr.Of Income Tax,Simla vs M/S Green World Corporation on 6 May, 2009
24. Like observations were made by the Court in CIT Shimla v
Greenworld Corporation (2009) 7 SCC 69, where the Court stated:
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
26. Firstly, this court notices that the letter dated 09.10.2012 was
not a public order as in the above case. It was a private communication
that forwarded information that had been brought to the Ministry‟s
attention. Secondly, as the single judge notes, Section 40 of the Act
uses the phrase "from time to time". Thus, there is no permanency that
the decision taken by the MCA in the letter dated 09.10.2012 and the
UoI is free to formulate any new position on the matter regarding dues
owed by Category I flying clubs. By not demanding that the dues of
DFC be kept in abeyance, the UoI has clearly changed its position.