Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: bombay non agriculturists loans act 1928 maharashtra section 6 power to make rules Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.444 seconds)

Jul 31 1964 (HC)

SadruddIn Suleman Jhaveri Vs. J.H. Patwardhan and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-31-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Bom224; (1965)67BOMLR101; ILR1965Bom394; 1965MhLJ290

..... 'although for the purposes of government accounts and audit, the amounts so sanctioned and drawn may have been described as 'a loan' to the maharashtra industrial development corporation, this was only for the purpose of financial accounting and, therefore, only a national debit'. that statement relating ..... bombay commissioners of divisions act, upon the state government to amend by notification the land acquisition act did not make a valid delegation of its legislative power to the state government.(5) next if has been objected by the petitioner that on the merits the notifications are had, because they do not comply with the requirements of the land acquisition act, particularly section 4 and 6 ..... littleton, 'if the tenant convert arable land into wood'; or from rogers agriculture and prices 'half the arable estate, as a rule, lay in fallow'. thus the words used to indicate land which is capable of being ploughed or fit for tillage and in opposition ..... that it necessarily vitiates the notification altogether but that he left the question open to doubt is itself an important indication of the non-application of mind. in navnitla's case, : air1961bom89 to which we have referred above, the commissioner was wiser. he omitted ..... case, : [1955]1scr290 , there were impugned two notifications issued under sections 3(1) (f) and 5 of the patna administration act of 1915 (bihar and orissa act 1 of 1915) as amended in 1928 whereby the local government was empowered in effect:(1) con cancel or modify .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1964 (HC)

Ganesh Narayan and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpurand o ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-10-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Bom92; (1964)66BOMLR807; ILR1965Bom200; 1965MhLJ577

..... municipalities or local bodies to make rules or bye-laws or permit the executive to decide the point of time at which an act enacted by the legislature is to be brought into force.(22) it is next contended by mr.mangalmurti that sub-section (4) of section 3 of the bombay commissioners of divisions act authorised the state government to confer powers on the commissioner to do ..... force in this contention.(50) in the return filed by respondents 1 to 3, that is, the commissioner, the land acquisition officer and the state of maharashtra, it has been stated in paragraph 7(vi) that enquiry under s. 226 of the m.p. land revenue code had been made by the sub-divisional officer and it had been found that suitable ..... is within the nagpur commissioner's division. the petitioners are cultivators and agriculturists. it may be stated that though the petition shows that there are 17 petitioners the petition of petitioner no. 1 was dismissed.(6) the commissioner, nagpur division, in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the land acquisition act issued a notification of date 13-12-1961 declaring that certain lands ..... the madhya pradesh land revenue code. this act repealed the c.p. land revenue act, 1917, the berar land revenue code, 1928 as well as the board of revenue act. however act were adapted and incorporated in chapter ii of this code. it may be stated that sub-section (2) of section 6 of the m.p. land revenue act also empowered the state government to confer upon or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1964 (HC)

Kishan Chand Vs. Ram Babu

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-25-1964

Reported in : AIR1965All65

..... not been noticed by the learned judges. in exercise of the power conferred by section 41 of the agriculturists' relief act to make rules consistent with the act 'for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this act' the state government made rules in 1935, the very first rule of which is as follows:'if in any proceeding under this act the creditor alleges that the debtor is not an ..... veerayya continues to be the law. in radharani v. sisir kumar, : air1953cal524 a decision of the judicial committee was held binding on high courts until the supreme court ruled otherwise. in state of bombay v. chhaganlal gangaram, : air1955bom1 chagla c.j. speaking for a full bench observed that a decision of the privy council continues to bind high court even after 25 ..... statute carries the burden of establishing that he is entitled to them.' accordingly it was for the respondent, and not the appellant to notice the proviso and to plead it.6. whether a party pays income-tax or how much income-tax is paid by a party is within his special knowledge and evidence to prove it may not be within ..... he had to ' prove them in order to succeed in his defence-there was no controversy about the fact of the non-compliance and so he had to prove, and prove only, that he was an agriculturist. since 'agriculturist' is defined in section 2(2) he had to prove that be came within the definition contained in that provision.now though the proviso is .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //