while considering a similar kind
of a matter under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to
Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 :
"7.............................................................................
......................................... In other words
Pochanna vs. State of Maharashtra ,
AIR 1985 Supreme Court 389,
their Lordships were called upon
to interpret the Maharashtra
Restoration of Lands to Schedule
Tribes
upon are as under:-
( a) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra , (1981)
4 SCC 647. The issue related to legal representation before ... Maharashtra ,
1985 AIR (SC) 389. One of the questions raised was of the
constitutional validity of Section 9 A of the Maharashtra
Restoration of Lands
upon are as under:-
( a) Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra , (1981)
4 SCC 647. The issue related to legal representation before ... Maharashtra , 1985
AIR (SC) 389. One of the questions raised was of the
constitutional validity of Section 9 A of the Maharashtra
Restoration of Lands
made by Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act and the validity of which ... Supreme Court in the Decision , Lingappa Pochanna Applewar v. State of Maharashtra . In the absence of any parallel provision
learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. , , the Supreme Court was concerned ... before the attempted amendment, and there was no question of restoration of Explanation II to section 2(g) as originally brought in the Sales
payment,
restoration of supply and other cognate
matters. In exercise of the power conferred by
Section 50 the State Commission has framed
the Maharashtra Electricity
this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of
Maharashtra [Girnar Traders v. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555, paras ... dispossession, except under the
authority of law, the owner might obtain
restoration of possession by a proceeding for
mandamus against the Government as held
held that neither the provisions of
section 33 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, nor
the provisions of section 50 of The Bombay Public Trust ... suit under
section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the trust seeks
restoration of its civil rights, therefore, the permission of
the Charity Commissioner
held that neither the provisions of
section 33 of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, nor
the provisions of section 50 of The Bombay Public Trust ... suit under
section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the trust seeks
restoration of its civil rights, therefore, the permission of
the Charity Commissioner
