Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: coast guard act 1978 section 70 · Page 1 of about 14 results (0.045 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jun 09 2010

Sk.Singh .. Vs. the Director General, Coast Guard Headquarters, and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-09-2010

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution Of India - Article 226

respondent, for a judicial review of the trial proceedings in accordance with sections 117 and 118 of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. The judicial proceedings were conducted by the Chief Law Officer on 9th September, 2002 at the Coast Guard … of 13 contained in the charge sheet and awarded the sentence of dismissal from service, as provided under section 53 of the Coast Guard Act, by its order dated 5th June, 2002. The copies of the coast … the deputy or assistant judge-advocate general of the command before confirmation. Rule 70 lays down that upon receiving the proceedings of a general or district

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 21 2013

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-21-2013

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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 27 1980

United States Vs. Ward

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-1980

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 … penalties in one statute and of civil penalties in another statute enacted 70 years later tends to dilute the force of the factor -- the … 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

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Jun 25 1987

Solorio Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-25-1987

Subject : Land Acquisition

convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Code) in New York, where petitioner was serving in the Coast Guard, to try him for the sexual abuse of fellow coastguardsmen's minor daughters in his privately owned home in … our earlier decision in O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258 (1969). While petitioner Richard Solorio was on active duty in the Seventeenth Coast Guard District in Juneau, Alaska, he sexually abused two young daughters of fellow … quoting Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57 , 453 U. S. 70 (1981). Page 483 U. S. 448 Since O'Callahan, we have adhered to … Armed Forces, Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, appears in the same section as do the provisions granting Congress authority, inter alia, to regulate commerce

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 20 1995

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

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-20-1995

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 … is bound to prejudice his valuable right to making an effective representation.' 70. As far as the grievance in respect of translations is concerned, one … 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.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 05 1979

Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts Vs. Feeney

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-05-1979

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 … F.Supp. at 148 n. 9. Thus, for over 70 years, the Commonwealth has maintained, as an integral … 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 … the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Section 712 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-11, provides that "[n]othing contained

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 18 2008

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Nalini Parida

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Aug-18-2008

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR2009Ori56

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, challenging the award dated 26-9-2005 patted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. … the question of award of interest by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation.10. The provisions of Interest Act, 1978 are also clear that in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any … Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 70 of 2004 whereby it awarded a sum of … station because the accident did not come to the notice of either Guard/Driver of the train or the Station employees and no information in connection … Kumari Sanju Panda, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 17 2008

Jawahar Santhakumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Secretary ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-17-2008

Subject : Service

Acts : Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 5(1); Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services - Rule 39; IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Regulation 5(1); Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 - Rules 4(2), 8(1) and 9; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : (2008)5MLJ994

reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated.13. In O. Konavalov v. Commander, Coast Guard Region and Ors. : 2006(197)ELT3(SC) , it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that 'the State … censure passed on the petitioner. Thereupon, the Government filed Review Application No. 70 of 1995 before the Tribunal, challenging the competency and jurisdiction of the … Member in deciding the matter, after the Chairman demitted the office, quoting Section 5(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and a judgment of this Court in a Writ Petition, holding that such orders passed by a

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 05 2008

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-05-2008

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 … subsequent cases. In Rindge Co. v. Los Angles County (1923) 262 US 700 : 67 Law Ed 1186, the Court observed that 'it is not

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 06 1978

Ray Vs. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-06-1978

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 … 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 … was in direct conflict with 46 U.S.C. §§ 215, 364. We agree. Section 364 provides that "every coastwise seagoing steam vessel subject to the navigation

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial