Advanced Search Results

R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 14, 226 and 226(2); Navy Act, 1957 - Sections 11(2) and 23; Navy Service Regulations, 1965 - Regulations 235 to 239 and 269(1A)

Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR434; 2002(4)BomCR567; (2002)4BOMLR246; [2002(94)FLR956]; 2002(3)MhLj561

being Civil Writ Petition No. 6470 of 1999 inter alia challenging the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and Regulation No. 269(1A) of the Navy Service Regulations, 1965 as being unconstitutional on the ground that they

Public Utilities Comm'n of California Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

expressed by Congress, contingent upon carrier ability to provide safe, adequate, and efficient transportation. [ Footnote 7 ]" Navy regulations provide that, when applicable freight rates "appear excessive," they "may be negotiated for more equitable rates." [ … 8012(f), respectively. [ Footnote 5 ] Armed Services Procurement Regulations, 32 CFR, 1957, Cum.Pocket Supp., § 1.108 et seq. [ Footnote 6 ] Id., § … was an "actual controversy" between the United States and the Commission within the meaning of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Pp. 355 U. S. 536 -539. (b) In the circumstances of this case, the … U. S. 535 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 530 of the California Public Utilities Code, Cal.Stat.1955, c. 1966, provides in … case was not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1342. P. 355 U. S. 540 . 2. When

Unilever Plc and anr. Vs. Vesco Laboratories and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : CivilIntellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 20, 134, 134(1) and 134(2); Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 62 and 62(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 20 - Order 2, Rule 3 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 - Order 43, Rule 1

Reported in : AIR2010Guj8

blue colour having a red cap and the said label contains a navy blue background upon which the said artwork of the 'DOMEX' word mark … observed as under:11. The Division Bench has also erred in its construction of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 62 reads:62. Jurisdiction of Court over matters arising under this Chapter:(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising … the summonses of the aforesaid suit, submitted application Exh.25 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 134 of the Act requesting to reject the plaint on the ground that the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad

Smt. Sunita B. Vatsaraj Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Another

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 2-A and 10(1); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Air Force Act, 1950; Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957

Reported in : 1999(3)ALLMR89; 1999(4)BomCR209; (1999)2BOMLR536; 1999(2)MhLj933

such person.(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957; or(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, … witnesses, when the testimony of the petitioner is examined, as per page 134 going upto page 137, she has maintained in her examination-in-chief that she … of 1990 on 4th July, 1994. This reference has been referred to the Tribunal under the provisions of section 10(1)(d) read with section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The services of the petitioner came to

R. Shaji. Vs. State of KeralA.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 120B; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Sections 164, 207, 161, 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27, 8, 9

not carry any weight. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC 614; Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 1251; … is thus, the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence, as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. Where the law requires the examination of at least one attesting witness, it has … made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group (s) loses significance. (Vide : Prabhu Babaji Navie v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC

United States Vs. Allen-bradley Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

installation, or acquisition after December 31, 1939, as either the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy has certified as necessary in the interest of national defense during the emergency period, which certification shall be … v. Allen-Bradley Co. No. 78 Argued December 13, 1956 Decided January 22, 1957 352 U.S. 306 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus Under § … tax purposes. Pp. 352 U. S. 306 -311. 134 Ct.Cl. 800 reversed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the … that such facilities would become wholly useless when the emergency had passed. In response to these fears, Congress acted to lessen the financial risks involved in the private construction of emergency facilities. Among other things it amended … v. National Lead Co., 230 F.2d 161. The language of the crucial section 124(f) is ambiguous. It specifies that, in determining the amount of the

Arnett Vs. Kennedy

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

Court held that no hearing need be provided to a cook employed by a private concessionaire of the Navy before the Government revoked her security clearance. The revocation of security clearances was within the "unfettered control" of … Arnett v. Kennedy - 416 U.S. 134 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974) Arnett … for injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that the standards and procedures established by and under the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7501, for the removal of nonprobationary employees from the federal service unwarrantedly interfere with such … what kind of speech might be made the basis for removal action. Section 7501 of the Act provides for removal of nonprobationary federal employees "only

United States Vs. Alaska

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

States Coast and Geodetic Survey resumed charting Dinkum Sands as a lowtide elevation, based on observations of a Navy vessel made the prior year. It is undisputed that one of the members of the Baseline Committee persuaded … United States did not transfer such lands to Alaska at statehood. The 1957 Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife application to create a wildlife refuge … James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 , 141, 142 (1937) ("[The Enclave Clause] governs … United States and Alaska over the ownership of submerged lands along the State's Arctic Coast. The Alaska Statehood Act expressly provides that the federal Submerged Lands Act applies to Alaska. The latter Act entitles Alaska to submerged … supply that would necessarily exist 3 beneath both submerged lands and uplands. Section l1(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act, which noted that the United States

Arun Ramchandra Hublikar Vs. Cummins Diesel Sales and Service (I) Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Education

the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other … reiterated in the decision in Hindustan Motors v/s Lakshmiah (2002) II LLJ 134 (Madras)that, to find out whether a person was performing the work of … Labour Court heard the parties on preliminary issue and held that the Petitioner was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and answered the Reference accordingly. This order has been challenged by

United States Vs. Johnson

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

431 U. S. 671 -672 (1977) (citations omitted). [ Footnote 3 ] In Uptegrove, the wife of a Navy lieutenant killed while flying home on an Air Force C-141 transport brought suit against the Government under the … Syllabus Under Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 , the Government has no Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) liability for injuries to members of the military service arising out of or in the course of … of Florida under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. Her complaint sought damages from the United States on the ground