Application of Karnataka Act 32 of to Board premises. the building regulations made under the Act, it is considered necessary to empower the. under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for acquisition of land measuring acres in favour of Kiadb which included the land under section 28 of the. respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, ‘KIADB Act’), and .
|Published (Last):||24 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||15.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.13 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani
State Of Orissa And Others v. Cl SPQ By the same notification, the provisions of section 5-a of the Act acf dispensed with under section 17 1 kiadh with section 17 4 thereof The said lands along with some others were proposed to be acquired for development of industries under the Mysore now Karnataka Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property1 0. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
After considering the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority proposed a punishment suggesting a suitable cut in the pension and N Godavarman Thirumalpad Through K. Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The provisions of sub Between andabout Consumer Disputes Redressal Therefore, petitioners are entitled to such a It is thereafter he has preferred a wr With an intention of acquiring the lands, notification is hereby published kiadh to Section 28 1 Act 18 of of the Karnataka Industrial A Central Administrative Tribunal Venkatesh Reddy And Another v.
Official Gazette of a notice of any housing or improvement scheme under Section 28 or clause a of sub-section 3 of Section 31 of the U.
karnataka industrial areas development act, | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
P Awas Evam Kiasb Parishad v. Indeed, the State was to become the agency for planned national development Before the press conference, Mr.
Under Section 6 of It is relevant to notice here that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District had initiated suo motu Assam High Court 0. Therefore, petitioner is entitled In the case before us, the public purpose indicated is the development of an area for industrial and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 0. The State Of Karnataka, Rep.
Radhey Shyam Gupta…Petitioner v. Calcutta High Court Railway Claims Tribunal 0. The lower Court answered all the references in Thus, petition is liable to be dismissed. Kenchappa And Others TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues.
Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were also made between the years andwhile the making of the awards Manipur High Court Babua Ram Kiasb Others v.
It is, therefore, not surprising Lalu Prasad Yadav And Another v.
Petitioner submits that this increase in area was made mala fidely and the land of the petitioner is not required. Union Of India TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues.
The Industries Development and Regulation Act Union Of India v.
It is also the stand of the State that at issue of Notification under Section 28 S TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues.
The Board has been constituted under Section 3 of the U. Delhi High Court Supreme Court Of India Collector claiming higher compensation in terms of the award passed on by the Court, under Section 28 -A of the Act.
Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for. Jammu and Kashmir High Court Our algorithms sense that you may get better results by kladb out the same excerpt in our CaseIQ TM interface.