Advanced Search Results

Union of India, Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Ot ...

Court : Kerala

Subject : Land Acquisition

an agreement to be a sub-contractor to the salvage, which is clear from his representation Ext.P8. 35. The Coast Guard Act, 1978 was enacted for constitution and regulations of armed forces of the union for ensuring the security of maritime … dated 3.8.1999 rejected the statutory representation submitted by the petitioner. It was observed in the order that, under Section 14 of the Coast Guard Act, it is one of the primary duties of the Coast Guard to … defined in this Part of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, in Section 390 to include the coasts of wrecks and tidal rivers. In addition, the

D.S. Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : ConstitutionService

Acts : Consittution of India - Articles 14, 16, 26 and 39

Reported in : 2004(2)JKJ503

of the State/Central Government, is essential. On the other hand, in the Coast Guard, Section 115 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978, which regulates the appointments of Chief Law Officer and other Law Officers, provides an experience of 10 years … gained judicial recognition. The principle incorporated in Article 14 when understood from the high angle provided in Article 39(d) of the Constitution is held to be the recognition of the aforesaid doctrine. It has been held in

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 … 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 … Bombay in BBC No.1 of 1993. These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against their conviction and sentence … Associations and Others vs. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 39.which is also a Constitution Bench judgment, this Court held as under:-“61. It

Sandeep Yadav vs Director General of Indian Coast

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 17.09.2016 at the Headquarters of ICGS, Haldia. f. Thereafter, charges were framed under Section 22(a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Petitioners for pushing and punching Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar and … rule 36 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 and where the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 39 of the principal rules have been complied with, the Commanding Officer may dispense with the above procedure.(2) The

United States Vs. Ward

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Service Tax

Arkansas River system, respondent notified the Environmental Protection Agency of the discharge, and this was reported to the Coast Guard, who assessed a $500 penalty against respondent under § 311(b)(6). After his administrative appeal was denied, respondent filed … 91 Stat. 1566, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1978, Pub.L. 95-576, 92 Stat. 2468. Except as noted, those amendments have no … UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act prohibits the discharge of oil into navigable waters. Section 311(b)(5) requires any person in charge of an onshore … decision of this Court. See, e.g., Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391 , 303 U. S. 399 (1938) (Double Jeopardy Clause protects only against

Ex Uttam Navik Shelender Singh vs Union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

on 17.09.2016 at the Headquarters of ICGS, Haldia. f. Thereafter, charges were framed under Section 22(a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the Petitioners for pushing and punching Executive Officer Himanshu Shekhar and … rule 36 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 and where the provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 39 of the principal rules have been complied with, the Commanding Officer may dispense with the above procedure.(2) The

California State Lands Comm'n Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

] Since that time, the land has been continuously possessed by the United States and used as a Coast Guard Reservation. The Pacific shoreline along the Coast Guard site remained subtantially unchanged until near the turn of the … 284 U. S. 545 -546 (1932). [ Footnote 5 ] In May, 1978, California transmitted a proposed permit to the United States to allow construction … 332 U. S. 19 , 332 U. S. 39 -40 (1947) (footnote omitted): "[O]fficers who have no … deciding the substantive legal issue. Congress addressed the issue of accretions to federal land in the Submerged Lands Act, which vested title in the States to the lands underlying the territorial sea and confirmed the title of … belong to the upland owner. Pp. 457 U. S. 285 -286. (d) Section 2(a)(3) of the Submerged Lands Act, defining "lands beneath navigable waters" that

P. Perumal Vs. A.V. Sureshbabu,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Service

Acts : Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - Rules 2(1), 9, 10, 16B and 27; Service Commission Regulations - Regulations 8 and 16; Promotion Regulations - Regulation 9

Reported in : (2007)4MLJ160

of State policy or practice, which can claim exemption from the judicial consideration, vide O. Konalov v. Commander, Coast Guard Region : 2006(197)ELT3(SC) . However, as already adverted to supra, we are not deciding in these writ petitions … II in July 1959, and has challenged the constitutional validity of the 1978 Rules. Mr. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the respondents, took a preliminary … a post borne on the cadre of such service. In fact, Rule 39 (c) of the General Rules indicate that a person temporarily promoted in … Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. : (1997)IILLJ78SC wherein it was held:Section 6(3) of the Act only empowers the authority to appoint the Secretary and other Officers and employees of the Authority. The power

M.V. Mariner Iv, a Foreign Flag Vessel and Another Vs. Videsh Sanchar ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 38, Rule 5; Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 - Sections 443 and 444; Constitution of India - Articles 3(1), 51, 225; Colonical Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 - Sections 2(2); State Immunity Act, 1978; Administration of Justice Act, 1956 - Sections 3(4); The Admirality Act, 1934; Constitution Act, 1867; Admirality Courts Act, 1861 - Sections 6; Admirality Court Act, 1840; Supreme Court Act, 1981; Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873; Supreme Court of Judicature (Commencement) Act, 1984; Sea Act, 1925; Bills of Lading Act, 1956

Reported in : 1998(2)ALLMR755; 1998(5)BomCR312; 1998(1)MhLj751

18th and 19th June, 1996, the cables were broken causing disturbance in the communication. The plaintiffs contacted the Coast Guard Authority to investigate into the matter. The services of surveyor M/s. Ericson Richards were also taken and the … it as a source of English law. Some rules of English law, such as those concerning State Immunity Act, 1978, have been consciously derived from what were regarded as rules and principles of international law and have been … order dated 9-11-1993 delivered by Justice Variava in the Admiralty Suit No. 39 of 1993 in support of his submission that despite the decision of … of arrest of sister ship only from 1956. He further contended that section 443 of the Merchants Shipping Act, clearly indicates that it is only

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 … 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 … second purpose. As amended, the Labeling Act contains two express pre-emption provisions. Section 5(a) protects cigarette manufacturers from inconsistent state labeling laws by prohibiting the … Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 479 F. 3d 383, 392-393 (2007). We granted the petition for certiorari to