Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab cinemas regulation act 1952 Page 5 of about 2,234 results (0.083 seconds)

Aug 16 1999 (HC)

Piccdaly Hotels (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Chandigarh Administration and or ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)126PLR143

..... adjudication in this petition is whether the construction of 11kv grid sub station in sector 34-a, chandigarh is contrary to the provisions of the capital of punjab (development and regulation) act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act) and the rules framed thereunder and whether a writ in the nature of prohibition deserves to be issued at the instance of the petitioners for restraining ..... the administration would have earned by giving contract of the parking site. equally surprising is the failure of the concerned authorities to take steps for stopping the misuse of the cinema building by the petitioners who have converted the basement, which was meant for parking, into a shopping complex. is this so because of the 'right connections' of the petitioners? answer ..... same to third party for collecting the parking fee from the members of public. he also highlighted the highly contumacious conduct of the petitioners in converting the basement of the cinema building which was meant for parking of vehicles into a shopping complex and submitted that this should be treated as sufficient for dismissal of the writ petition.8. sections 3 ..... congestion and resultant chaos. he also invoked the doctrine of promissory/equitable estoppel and argued that after having held out a promise to the petitioners that the land abutting the cinema site is reserved for parking, the respondents cannot turn around and change the user of the said land and deprive the petitioners of their right to use the same as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1996 (HC)

Natraj Chhabigrih, Sigra Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1996All375

..... in-aid. hence there could not be any difference between the two classes of proprietors of cinema exhibitors. it is further recorded :' both are permanent cinema-houses. both have been granted licences under the u.p. cinema (regulations )act, 1995, and the rules framed thereunder for carrying on their business. both are governed by ..... one which is not the other ciass covered by the main section.84. : air1996sc857 , haribilas rai bansal v. state of punjab amendment to section 30 of the east punjab act was under consideration. this gave preferential protection to the tenants of the residential accommodations and not to non-residential accommodations. it held ..... being in force.58. (1985) 58 stc 393 : (1085 tax lr 2882) (fb) deshraj pushap kumar gulati v. slate of provision of section 4-b of punjab act was challenged relying on earlier high courtdecision in bata india ltd. v. slate of haryana, (1983) 54 stc 226 : (1984 tax lr ..... value but does not set aside the earlier judgment, which can only be done in cases of nullity.55. shivdeo singh v. stale of punjab air 1963 sc 1909 was a case for cancellation of the order of allotment passed in favour of 'b', the high court cancelled the order ..... high court has to be restrictive as there is right of appeal against its decisions.32. reference was made to : [1992]194itr434(sc) , state of punjab v. surinder kumar) :'6. ... .it is, threfore, futile to suggest that if this court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1987 (HC)

Smt. Kaushliya Devi and ors. Vs. Assistant Director, Urban Lands and B ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1988WLN(UC)69

..... that the state government was not justified in assuming jurisdiction which had been conferred on the licensing authority by section 5(1) and (2) of the punjab cinema (regulation) act. for the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the impugned orders are liable to be struck down as they were not made by the prescribed authority. ..... he alone could have exercised that power. while exercising that power, he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone. there is no provision in the act empowering the respondent no. 3 to issue such a direction as contained in his letter (anx 6). he had no jurisdiction to issue such directions. ..... in this case is whether the notice (anx. 7) has validly been issued to the petitioners by the respondent no. 1. section 15b of the act runs as under:15b. land and building tax escaping assessment--if the assessing authority has reason to believe, that for any reason any land or building ..... 20, 1985 (anx. 5) refusing to refund the amount of tax deposited sarlier and his notice (anx. 7) issued under section 15-b of the act. the facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.: the petitioners own suresh bhawan, 803 chopasani road. jodhpur. the assistant director ..... been made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior.15. in commr. of police, bombay v. gordhanaas bhanji : [1952]1scr135 , this court struck down the order purported to have been passed by the commissioner of police in the exercise of his powers under the bombay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1967 (HC)

isherdas Sahni and Brothers by Partner V.N. Sahni Vs. Rajah V. Rajeswa ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1968)2MLJ233

..... april, 1967, for establishing their rights as statutory tenants entitled to the benefits of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960 and their lawful possession of the theatre within the meaning of rule 13 of the madras cinemas regulations act and also for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs'' rights and enjoyment of the theatre.9 ..... with) will not alter the character of the lease. from the foregoing it has to be held that the lease, exhibit p-4 of the year 1952 was not a lease of a fully equipped cinema theatre with the talkie equipment as of the kind dealt with in raja chetty v. jagannadadas : (1949)2mlj694 the bench decision of this court.35. i ..... made to exhibit p-180, the letter written by the plaintiffs to the commissioner of police as early as 30th june, 1952 in which it was stated that though the plaintiffs took possession of the i cinema on 3rd may, 1952 the cinema was closed for renovation and decoration nearly two months from that date, and that the theatre was reopened on 27th june ..... 1944-45 to april 1952, one somasundaram chetty was exhibiting pictures in this theatre either as a lessee or with the leave and licence of the defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendants). the sahni brothers, the seniors and elders of the present partners of the plaintiff's firm, isherdas sahni & bros., who were refugees from punjab negotiated for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1992 (HC)

Prof. A. Lakshmisagar and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1993Kant121; 1992(2)KarLJ369

..... was empowered to issue cinema licence and the state government was only the controlling authority. in the guise of exercising the controlling ..... . 95 of the act. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the above stand of the respondents is totally untenable. in support of this, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the supreme court in state of punjab v. harikishan, : [1966]2scr982 . that was a case which arose under the punjab cinema regulation act. under s. 5 of that act, the district magistrate ..... ]3scr1217 in which at paragraph 30 the decisions in harinarayan was distinguished. the question which arose in that case was under s. 23 of the punjab agricultural produce marketing act, which expressly provided that subject to the rules made by the state government, the committee could levy fees and therefore rule 29 which conferred power on the board was ..... scheme for bangalore city was prepared by the bangalore city improvement board, the predecessor of the bangalore development authority ('bda' for short) constituted under the bangalore development authority act, 1976 ('bda act' for short). the scheme had been approved by the government. under the scheme an area was ear-marked for a public park. under s. 19(4) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1995 (HC)

Rangadas Naik Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1997ACJ1392; ILR1996KAR975; 1996(2)KarLJ191

..... state government was not justified in assuming jurisdiction which had been conferred on the licensing authority by section 5(1) and (2) of the punjab cinema regulation act. in the purtabpur company ltd. v. cane commissioner of bihar and ors. an order passed by the cane commissioner in exercise of the ..... direct recruitment basis only. the provisions of article 233 do not however forbid appointments by promotion of civil judges in accordance with the rules regulating such appointments. on the contrary article 233(2) prescribes the conditions of eligibility for appointment as a district judge only in regard to ' ..... is well settled by a number of supreme court judgments starting with its judgment in commissioner of police bombay v. gordhandas bhanji, : [1952]1scr135 in which case the supreme court struck down an order purported to have been passed by the commissioner of police, in exercise of his ..... . smt. pushpa wanti and ors., , partap singh kairon v. gurmej singh and annamalai mudaliar, : air1953mad362 , 3853/1952, d/3.9.1952, in support of his argument that the power available to the high court under article 227(1) was wide enough to justify the issue of ..... exercise of such jurisdiction. reliance was placed in support upon judgments of the supreme court in state of punjab and another v. hari krishan sharma, : [1966]2scr982 in commissioner of police, bombay v. gordhandas bhanji, : [1952]1scr135 in the purtabpur co. ltd. v. cane commissioner of bihar and ors., : [1969]2scr807 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1989 (HC)

Nirmal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 39(1989)DLT517; 1990(18)DRJ30; 1989RLR513

..... an application had been filed before the sub divisional officer for the grant of license under section 5(1) and (2) of the punjab cinemas (regulation) act. the said act provided that the district magistrate shall be the licensing authority. the proviso to section 4 authorised the government to constitute another authority as the ..... according to section 41, the municipal government of delhi vests in the corporation but this is subject to the provisions of the act, rules, regulations and bye-laws made under the act. section 54 provides for the appointment of the commissioner. the said section reads as follows : '54,(1) the central government ..... the corporation dated 27th may, 1970 which pertained to the eligibility of employees to sit for the audit examination, it had been contended that regulations which had been framed as contained in the notification dated 9th september, 1975 were illegal as being contrary to the resolution of 27th may, ..... of the government, the licensing authority may grant licenses under this act to such persons as it thinks fit, on such terms and conditions as it may determine', and this provision conferred wide powers on the state of punjab to issue directions with regard to the grant of licenses. this ..... license. the high court held that the state of punjab had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. in the appeal which was filed it was sought to be contended that sub-section (2) of section 5 of the said act provided that 'subject to the foregoing provisions of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 1997 (HC)

Uttam S/O Shamlal Jaiswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1998(1)BomCR437; 1998(1)MhLj333

..... to shri dhorde.30. shri dhorde further relied on a decision reported in : air1992sc1519 , in the matter of deepak theater, dhuri v. state of punjab and others. it is a matter decided under the provisions of the punjab cinemas (regulation) act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder. while dealing with this matter, their lordships of the supreme court, dealt with the provisions of section 5 of ..... the act r/w rule 4 thereunder and the condition 4-a of the licence observing that the same were of regulatory measure and it was ..... the 'rules' for the purposes of brevity) specifically makes it clear that, a retail licensee shall abide by the conditions of his license and the provisions of the act and the rules, the regulations and the orders made thereunder. a specific form of undertaking is given by way of form c.l. xx. in the instant case, shri dhorde, pointed out that ..... . 2 would get himself deleted from the partnership and would be held responsible for the consequences thereof. no doubt, the usual undertaking as regards abiding by the rules and regulations of the prohibition act, orders and conditions of the license was also given by said pradeep - the respondent no. 2.6. after rejection by the collector by order dated 6th february, 1982 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 1966 (HC)

United India Timber Works and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corp ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1967P& H166; [1967(14)FLR439]; (1967)IILLJ558P& H

..... of 1951.3. section 19(2)(f) of the punjab betterment charges and acreage rates act, ii of 1953.4. section 3(h) of the punjab professions, trades, callings and employments taxation (amendment) act 10 of 1962, amending section 11 of the punjab act 7 of 1956, and5. section 9(c) of the punjab cinemas (regulation) act xi of 1952.9. shri tirath singh has in reply criticised the madras decision ..... by submitting that the court in that case did not take into consideration the provisions of section 76 of the act which expressly accede to the ..... rules made under the act a controlling power in regard to the institution of proceedings ..... this case is clear from the head-note which had better be read :--'rule 17 of the u. p. employees insurance court rules (1952) prescribing period of limitation for an application under section 75(2) of the act is a matter of procedure and is covered by the rule-making power conferred on the state government under section 96(1)(b) of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1968 (SC)

The Purtabpore Co., Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1970SC1896; (1969)1SCC308; [1969]2SCR807

..... the state government was not justified in assuming jurisdiction which had been conferred on the licensing authority by section 5(1) and (2) of the punjab cinemas (regulation) act. for the reasons mentioned above we hold that the impugned orders are liable to be struck down as they were not made by the prescribed authority ..... was decided by the central government where a review had been applied for. rule 52 of the rules framed under the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, no. 53 of 1941, which gives the aggrieved party the right to a review created a lis between him and the lessee, and ..... adopted, the effect of the decision on the persona affected and other indicia afforded by the statute. the mere fact that the act in question or the relevant regulations do not make it obligatory on the authority to call for an explanation and to hear the person concerned is not conclusive on ..... be manufactured from sugarcane except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in the licence issued in this behalf; (f) prohibit or restrict or otherwise regulate the export of sugarcane from any area (including a reserved area) except under and in accordance with a permit issued in this behalf. (2) ..... made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior. 13. in commissioner of police, bombay v. gordhandas bhanji, : [1952]1scr135 this court struck down the order purported to have been passed by the commissioner of police in the exercise of his powers under the bombay police .....

Tag this Judgment!

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