Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for UNION OF INDIA VS MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST...
Checking relevance for State of Jharkhand VS Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. , Ranchi...
Checking relevance for Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur VS Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation...
Checking relevance for BALWANT RAI SALUJA VS AIR INDIA LTD. ...
Checking relevance for State of Uttar Pradesh VS United Bank of India...
Checking relevance for Punjab Land Development And Reclamation Corporation LTD. , Chandigarh: Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Amravati: Regional Manager (West Zone) Now Known As Kanpur Region, Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office, Lucknow: Mana VS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh: Chandrashekhar Maribhau Deshmukh: Secretary, U. P. Bank Employees Union, C/o Bank Of Baroda, Latouche Road, Kanpur. : Labour Court, Ranchi: Namdeo: Secretary (Labour) , Delhi Administration, Delhi: Larsen And...
Checking relevance for High Court Of Gujarat VS Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat...
Checking relevance for STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS SKI AND SNOW RESORTS PVT. LTD. ...
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS SKI AND SNOW RESORTS PVT. LTD. - 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 408 : The KUZA Act (Kumaon Utter Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) applies certain provisions of the UPZA & LR Act (Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950) and its Rules to areas governed by the KUZA Act. Specifically, Sections 27, 41, 47, and 52 of the KUZA Act provide for the mutatis mutandis application of various chapters and sections of the UPZA & LR Act to the areas notified under Section 4 of the KUZA Act. The State Government may issue orders modifying or adapting these provisions without affecting their substance, and such orders are not subject to challenge in any court. Additionally, Section 3(18) of the KUZA Act clarifies that references to the UPZA & LR Act and its rules are to be construed as references to those Acts and rules as amended from time to time. This mechanism allows the KUZA Act to incorporate and apply the substantive land reform provisions of the UPZA & LR Act to the Kumaon region, even as the latter may be amended or repealed, while ensuring that the application remains current and effective in the context of the KUZA jurisdiction.Checking relevance for State of Uttarakhand & another VS M/s Ski and Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ...
State of Uttarakhand & another VS M/s Ski and Snow Resorts Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 411 : The KUZA Act (Uttarakhand Land Acquisition Act) incorporates certain provisions of the UPZA & LR Act by reference. Specifically, Sections 152 to 195 of the UPZA & LR Act were made applicable to the areas governed by the KUZA Act. Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act, which prohibits members of Scheduled Tribes (bhumidhar or asami) from transferring land to non-Scheduled Tribe individuals by sale, gift, mortgage, lease, or otherwise, was held to be applicable to the KUZA Act. This applicability stems from the fact that the provisions of the UPZA & LR Act were adapted by reference to the KUZA Act, and any subsequent amendments to the UPZA & LR Act, including the insertion of Section 157-B by U.P. Act No. 21 of 1982, automatically applied to the KUZA Act. Therefore, the application of KUZA includes the restriction on land transfer by Scheduled Tribe members as defined under Section 157-B of the UPZA & LR Act.Checking relevance for State of Kerala VS Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Kerala State Unit...
Checking relevance for SHAH FAESAL VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for State of Kerala VS Kandath Distilleries...
Checking relevance for National Legal Services Authority VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar VS State of Maharashtra ...
Checking relevance for Hero Vinoth (Minor) VS Seshammal...
Hero Vinoth (Minor) VS Seshammal - 2006 4 Supreme 131 : The application of KUZA (which appears to be a typographical or contextual misrepresentation of the legal principles discussed in the document) is not directly referenced in the provided legal documents. However, the documents extensively discuss the legal principles governing the distinction between an easement by grant and an easement of necessity under the Indian Easement Act, 1882, particularly Section 13 and Section 41, and their implications in second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The key application lies in determining whether a right of way granted in a partition deed constitutes an easement by grant (contractual, not extinguishable by alternate access) or an easement of necessity (statutory, extinguishable when necessity ceases). The documents clarify that if a right of way is established by grant, it cannot be extinguished merely because an alternate access becomes available, as such a right is governed solely by the terms of the agreement between the parties and is not subject to Section 41 of the Indian Easement Act, which applies only to easements of necessity. This distinction is critical in second appeals where the High Court may interfere if the lower courts have fundamentally misapprehended the nature of the right as an easement of necessity when it was actually a grant, thereby raising a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.Checking relevance for Aley Ahmad Abidi VS Dist. Inspector of Schools, Allahabad...
