Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: aircraft amendment act 2007 section 14 amendment of section 11b Court: karnataka Page 3 of about 35 results (0.188 seconds)

B.S. Kamath and Co. and ors Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1986(8)ECC92; 1986(24)ELT456(Kar); ILR1986KAR3895

..... excluding the landing charges was untenable. 36. the customs act repealing the sea customs act, 1878, the inland bonded warehouses act, 1896, the land customs act, 1924 and section 15 of the aircraft act, 1934 which earlier regulated duties of customs on imports and exports in the country is a consolidating and amending act. in consolidating and amending, the said act had removed the deficiencies noticed in the working of ..... had decidedly improved on them. in fiscal legislation, in our country, it is even considered by many as a model enactment. 37. section 14 of the customs act enacted to regulate the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment, amended by act 20 of 1966 reads thus : 14. valuation of goods for purposes of assessment - (1) for the purposes of the customs tariff .....

Nacharamma Vs. the Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ban ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1973Kant10; AIR1973Mys10; (1972)2MysLJ224

..... disclose any cause of action and that there is no allegation that the accident was the result of a rash and negligent act on the part of the respondents. the petitioner was asked to suitably amend the application by alleging the cause of action. the petitioner maintained that the application was in order since it is strictly ..... sum of rs. 20,000/-from respondents 2 to 4. respondent 2 was the driver of the bus no. myd 3349, belonging to the 3rd respondent, the hindustan aircraft limited. (hindustan aeronautics limited), which caused the accident. the 4th respondent is the secretary. mysore government insurance department. bangalore 1, in which the bus in question had ..... 3rd respondent that the application is not in conformity with the prescribed form. all that the learned counsel submitted was, that the averment regarding rash and negligent act could have been mentioned against column 22 (any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim.) 4. section 110-a of .....

H.R. Patel Vs. C.G. Venkatalakshamma and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1955Kant65; AIR1955Mys65

..... bench shall be the decision of the chief court.' the code of civil procedure act v of 1908 was extended to mysore with effect from 1-4-1951 by the code of civil procedure amendment act ii of 1951. section 20 of the latter act provided that if immediately before the date on which the said code came into force ..... the maharaja of mysore. it contains provisions mostly analogous or similar to those in the letters patent of other high courts and the government of india act 1935 sections. (sic). that act was amended from time to time and when the state of mysore merged with the territory of india and became subject to the constitution section 15(3) ..... powers which may be exercised by a court. he has referred to some local and special acts such as section 13, aircraft act, 1934, section 24, arms act, 1878, section 10, central excises and salt act, 1944, section 13, food adulteration act, 1919 and the various acts relating to money-lenders and money-lending in which power has been given to courts to .....

Rishabh Mishra Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... for the offences alleged to have been committed under the 1956 act. therefore, section 216(16) of the act, 2013, being unambiguous in its application, the amended act, 2013, will not be applicable, and consequently, the special court established under the 2013 act lacks jurisdiction. b) the provisions of the companies act, 2013, are prospective. therefore, the special judge has no ..... way of process without issuing summons is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of inder mohan goswamy -vs- state of uttaranchal, 2007 12 scc1 12. submissions of sri amar correa, learned counsel for the petitioners in w.p.no.4381/2018 c/w w.p.no.4380/2018 are as ..... no.6074 of 2018 wp no.11889 of 2018 offered by it for placing the orders for purchase of aircrafts. the remittance, if had come in the normal course, would have gone for reduction in purchase price of the aircraft or accounted as miscellaneous income in the books of erstwhile kfal. knowing fully well about the nature of .....

Vinod Wadhawani Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... for the offences alleged to have been committed under the 1956 act. therefore, section 216(16) of the act, 2013, being unambiguous in its application, the amended act, 2013, will not be applicable, and consequently, the special court established under the 2013 act lacks jurisdiction. b) the provisions of the companies act, 2013, are prospective. therefore, the special judge has no ..... way of process without issuing summons is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the case of inder mohan goswamy -vs- state of uttaranchal, 2007 12 scc1 12. submissions of sri amar correa, learned counsel for the petitioners in w.p.no.4381/2018 c/w w.p.no.4380/2018 are as ..... no.6074 of 2018 wp no.11889 of 2018 offered by it for placing the orders for purchase of aircrafts. the remittance, if had come in the normal course, would have gone for reduction in purchase price of the aircraft or accounted as miscellaneous income in the books of erstwhile kfal. knowing fully well about the nature of .....

High Court of Karnataka, Represented by the Registrar General and Othe ...

Court : Karnataka

..... commission thereof. (2) this section applies to- (a) any offence triable exclusively by the court of session or by the court of a special judge appointed under the criminal law amendment act, 1952 (46 of 1952 ); (b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence. (3) every magistrate who tenders a ..... ; and in the case of importation by water, the owner and master of the vessel or in the case of importation by air, the owner and the master of the aircraft, in which the explosive is imported shall, in the absence of reasonable excuse, each be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. (3) whoever,- (a ..... by the accused during identification parade should be recorded. purpose of identification parade 252. the apex court in the case of heera and another vs state of rajasthan reported in (2007) 10 scc 175 has observed thus: 6. as was observed by this court in matru v.state of u.p. (1971 (2) scc 75) identification tests do .....

Shree Cement Limited Vs. The Union Of India

Court : Karnataka

..... .e.f.12.01.2015. the said provision comprised of section 10a(1) and 10a(2) (a) to 10a(2)(c). by amendment act no.16 of 2021, the provision was amended 39 (1996) 2 scc43940 (2007) 11 scc4041 (2009) 15 scc705- 35 - by incorporating two provisos to section 10a(2)(b) as well as an additional clause as section 10a(2)(d) w ..... record in w.p.no.1920/2021 are that the petitioner had been granted a prospecting licence and had applied for grant of mining lease in 2007 prior to 12.01.2015 when the amendment to mmdr act took effect by incorporation of section 10a(2)(b); subsequently, after following the prescribed procedure, the state government was satisfied that the petitioner s application .....

Shree Cement Limited Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... .e.f.12.01.2015. the said provision comprised of section 10a(1) and 10a(2) (a) to 10a(2)(c). by amendment act no.16 of 2021, the provision was amended 39 (1996) 2 scc43940 (2007) 11 scc4041 (2009) 15 scc705- 35 - by incorporating two provisos to section 10a(2)(b) as well as an additional clause as section 10a(2)(d) w ..... record in w.p.no.1920/2021 are that the petitioner had been granted a prospecting licence and had applied for grant of mining lease in 2007 prior to 12.01.2015 when the amendment to mmdr act took effect by incorporation of section 10a(2)(b); subsequently, after following the prescribed procedure, the state government was satisfied that the petitioner s application .....

Dalmia Cement (bharat) Limited Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... .e.f.12.01.2015. the said provision comprised of section 10a(1) and 10a(2) (a) to 10a(2)(c). by amendment act no.16 of 2021, the provision was amended 39 (1996) 2 scc43940 (2007) 11 scc4041 (2009) 15 scc705- 35 - by incorporating two provisos to section 10a(2)(b) as well as an additional clause as section 10a(2)(d) w ..... record in w.p.no.1920/2021 are that the petitioner had been granted a prospecting licence and had applied for grant of mining lease in 2007 prior to 12.01.2015 when the amendment to mmdr act took effect by incorporation of section 10a(2)(b); subsequently, after following the prescribed procedure, the state government was satisfied that the petitioner s application .....

Indocil Silicons Pvt Ltd Vs. Union Of India

Court : Karnataka

..... .e.f.12.01.2015. the said provision comprised of section 10a(1) and 10a(2) (a) to 10a(2)(c). by amendment act no.16 of 2021, the provision was amended 39 (1996) 2 scc43940 (2007) 11 scc4041 (2009) 15 scc705- 35 - by incorporating two provisos to section 10a(2)(b) as well as an additional clause as section 10a(2)(d) w ..... record in w.p.no.1920/2021 are that the petitioner had been granted a prospecting licence and had applied for grant of mining lease in 2007 prior to 12.01.2015 when the amendment to mmdr act took effect by incorporation of section 10a(2)(b); subsequently, after following the prescribed procedure, the state government was satisfied that the petitioner s application .....