Advanced Search Results

Office Of The Odisha Lokayukta Vs. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Election

other authority under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Coast Guard Act, 1978 or the procedure is applicable to such public servant under those Acts; 10 …….”.18. Chapter VII prescribes the … conducted by another Officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, may be senior in the ladder, was not legally 7 justified. The Officer of the Department has made a complaint on 9th December, 2020 and other officer is

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra Th:cbi Mumbai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

organized the landing of fire arms and ammunitions and hand grenades which was to take place on the coast of Dighi Jetty in Raigad District of State of Maharashtra on 09.01.1993. On the said date, Md. Dossa … same, we have to look into the relevant provisions of the Code. Chapter XXVII of the Code speaks about ‘Judgment’. The relevant provisions are Sections … and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short ‘the TADA’) for Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No.1 of … In the abovesaid incident of serial bombings, 257 human lives were lost, 713 persons were seriously injured and properties worth about Rs. 27 crores were

Capt. Parveen Rawat and ors. Vs. State of J and K and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120B, 409, 420 and 467; ;Army Act, 1950 - Sections 45, 52F and 69; ;Army (Amendment) Act, 1987; ;Army Regulations; ;Navy Act; ;Air Force Act - Section 176; ;Army Courts and Criminal Courts Rules; ;Court-martial (Adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 - Rule 3, 4, 5 and 6; ;Criminal Procedusre Code , Svt. 1989 - Sections 1, 1(2), 5, 5(1), 5(2), 167, 428, 475, 549 and 561A; ;Constitution of India - Article 20; ;Army Rules

been framed. Under Rule 3 it is provided that where a person subject to military, naval.air force or coast guard law or any other law relating to the Armed Forces of the Union for the time being in … Criminal Courts, Rules called Criminal Court and Court-martial (Adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules 1978 have been framed. Under Rule 3 it is provided that where a … of officers for checking the products in the trucks. The police after registering the FIRs also swung into action and seized the trucks/tankers. The drivers of the trucks/tankers were arrested, since they were found to be carrying … their claims. Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:The relevant chapters of the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act … Under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR Nos. 75 and 103/2005 registered at Police Station Leh and

ScIndia Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. Vs. Santos

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

but not the duty, to repair. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. [ Footnote 25 ] The United States Coast Guard has issued regulations with respect to the gear and equipment of cargo ships. 46 CFR Ch. 1, Subchapter … suits. See, e.g., Canizzo v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 579 F.2d 682 (CA2 1978); Gay v. Ocean Transport & Trading, Ltd., 546 F.2d 1233 (CA5 1977); … follows: "In the event of injury to a person covered under this chapter caused by the negligence of a vessel, then such person, or anyone … the winch. Respondent longshoreman brought suit against petitioner under the provision of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as amended in 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), which states that a longshoreman injured "by the negligence of … Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Santos No. 79-512 Argued December 1, 1980 Decided April 21, 1981

Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts Vs. Feeney

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

service, as defined herein, was under honorable conditions and who (b) served in the army, navy, marine corps, coast guard, or air force of the United States for not less than ninety days active service, at least one … Service law, Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., ch. 31, was recodified on January 1, 1979, 1978 Mass. Acts, ch. 393, and the veterans' preference is now found at … ranked in the order of their respective scores on an "eligible list." Chapter 31, § 23, requires, however, that disabled veterans, veterans, and surviving spouses … a nurse," who was honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces after at least 90 days of active service, at least one day of which was during "wartime," operates overwhelmingly to the advantage of males. Appellee … (1979) Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney No. 78-233 Argued February 26, 1979 Decided June 5, 1979

National Assn. of Home Builders Vs. Defenders of Wildlife

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

Army acting through the Chief of Engineers, after consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, anchorage and navigation of any of the navigable waters would be substantially impaired thereby; “(7) To … resolving any conflicts between the ESA and a proposed agency action. In 1978, shortly after our decision in Hill , Congress amended the ESA to … to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation” of the ESA, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. , 515 U. S. 687 , 703. Deference … appeals for the ninth circuit No. 06-340. Argued April 17, 2007-Decided June 25, 2007 Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), petitioner Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially administers each State’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program,

Altria Group, Inc. Vs. Good

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

a policy of approval. Cf. Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine , 537 U. S. 51 (2002) (holding that the Coast Guard’s decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly pre-empt petitioner’s tort claims).[ Footnote 14 ] More … in Wolens was the pre-emptive effect of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), 49 U. S. C. App. §1305(a)(1) (1988 ed.), which prohibits States … packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.” Pp. 5-9. (b) Respondents’ claim is not expressly pre-empted by §1334(b). As … 2008 Respondents, smokers of petitioners’ “light” cigarettes, filed suit, alleging that petitioners violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently advertising that their “light” cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine than regular brands. The District … “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725 , 746 (1981). Our inquiry into the scope

Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard”). There is no indication that the UCMJ was intended to require uniformity in procedure between courts-martial and military … states: “The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or … treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. See id. , at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses, when committed … irrelevant to this case because in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950), it was said to be the “obvious scheme” of the 1929

Ray Vs. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

reporting requirements, a traffic separation scheme, special ship movement rules applying to Rosario Strait (where, under a local Coast Guard rule, the passage of more than one 70,000 DWT vessel -- in bad weather, 40,000 DWT -- in … v. Atlantic Richfield No. 76-930 Argued October 31, 1977 Decided March 6, 1978 435 U.S. 151 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE … Law were preempted, and enjoining appellants and their successors from enforcing the chapter. [ Footnote 6 ] We noted probable jurisdiction of Page 435 U. … U.S. 151 (1978) Ray v. Atlantic Richfield No. 76-930 Argued October 31, 1977 Decided March 6, 1978 … that all the Tanker Law's operative provisions were preempted by federal law particularly the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA), which is designed to insure vessel safety and the protection of navigable waters and adjacent

Sri Mulchand Phoolchand JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs (P)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1987)(13)LC101Tri(Mum.)bai

finding that all the 89 silver ingots in question were brought to Kamathipura which is near the sea coast of India and were attempted to be smuggled out of India in contravention of the provisions of Section … and he was merely a custodian. Neither Shri Lokhandwalla nor his servants who were alleged to be on guard duty, disclosed either at the time of seizure or subsequent to it, that the silver ingots were belonging … The terms of the consent memo are: 1. Order dated 7th June, 1978 (a copy whereof is Exhibit 'G' to the Petition) set aside. Revision … not have been confiscated because the provisions of Chapter IV B was brought into force some time … of the consent memo are: 1. Order dated 7th June, 1978 (a copy whereof is Exhibit 'G' … officers of the Marine and Preventive Division, Bombay on 19.11.1966 for taking action under the Customs law. After a month thereafter, the appellant Mulchand P.