Advanced Search Results

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 … v. Lovingston, 23 Wall. at 90 U. S. 68 . "'Almost all jurists and legislators, . . … 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

Smt. Meena Jayendra Thakur Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 22 and 22(5); The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Summggling Activities Act - Sections 2, 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 5, 5A, 8, 9, 9(1), 9(2), 10 and 11

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2533

away from Karwar harbour. It was found moving slowly towards Karwar and on suspicion the officers on the coast guard ship signalled with loud speaker and search lights for the Arab Dhow to stop. The Arab Dhow, instead … Customs Act, 1962 (as substituted for certain words by Act 25 of 1978) which defines, Indian Customs Waters as waters extending into sea up to … the Constitution and as such it is mala fide, null and void. 68. Carrying his arguments further Shri Karmali has submitted that in the impugned … Mantralaya, Bombay - 400032 issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). She also seeks to impugn the declaration bearing No.

Sooraram Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dis ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Property

Acts : Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 1, 3, 4 to 17, 17(1), 17(2), 17(4), 18 to 28A, 29 to 30, 31 to 34, 35 to 37, 38 to 44B, 45 to 55; Andhra Pradesh Urban Area Development Act, 1975; Zoning Regulations; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1923; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 3; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984; Societies Registration Act, 1860; Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948; Infrastructure Development Act; Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Development Enabling Act, 2001; Indian Companies Act, 1913; Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1962 - Sections 40(1); Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951; Delhi Development Act, 1957; Constitution of Ind

Reported in : 2008(6)ALD19(SC); 2008(4)AWC3875(SC); JT2008(9)SC622; RLW2008(4)SC2794; 2008(12)SCALE367; (2008)9SCC552; 2008(6)Supreme402; (2007) 1 SCC64125

remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U.S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square … said orders, the High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for quashing proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for acquisition of land being illegal, unlawful, mala fide and in … foreign company and few selected persons with vested interest.4. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the State Government Gazette on

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 … 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 … applied here in conformity with §821, parallels the practicability standard of §836(b). Section 836, however, is limited by its terms to matters properly characterized as … , 144 (1890); Sherman v. Grinnell , 123 U. S. 679 , 680 (1887); Railroad Co. v. Grant , supra, at 403, Assessors v. Osbornes

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 … 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.

Kishan J. Hiranandani Vs. Collector of Customs (P)

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1987)(13)LC43Tri(Mum.)bai

cause notice contained the charges under Section 113(c) and (d) which related to goods being brought near the coast for the purpose of being exported from an unauthorised place and goods attempted to be exported or brought … the officers. The fact that a huge consignment of silver valued at Rs. 12 lakhs was without any guard showed that the goods were meant for illegal export. Hence the Collector's order of confiscation of silver was … before the Tribunal. The appeal is against the Order No. 113 of 1978 dated 23.9.1978 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and … to the Government of India under Old Section 131 of the Customs Act and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section