3 Dangerous Machines Regulation Act 1983 Chapter Ii Administration of the Act - Sortby Recent - Court Supreme Court of India - Year 2004 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: dangerous machines regulation act 1983 chapter ii administration of the act Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.041 seconds)

May 26 2004 (SC)

Sakshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-26-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3566; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)504; 2004(2)BLJR1378; 98(2004)CLT491(SC); 2004CriLJ2881; 112(2004)DLT457(SC); 2004(77)DRJ390; RLW2004(3)SC402; 2004(6)SCALE15; (2004)5SCC518;

G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by way of public interest litigation, by Sakshi, which is an organisation to provide legal, medical, residential, psychological or any other help, assistance or charitable support for women, in particular those who are victims of any kind of sexual abuse and/or harassment, violence or any kind of atrocity or violation and is a violence intervention center. The respondents arrayed in the writ petition are (1) Union of India; (2) Ministry of Law and Justice; and (3) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi. The main reliefs claimed in the writ petition arc as under :A) Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring inter alia that 'sexual intercourse' as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code shall include all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2004 (SC)

Modern School Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-27-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2236; 2004(4)ALD50(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)894; 111(2004)DLT317(SC); [2004(3)JCR113(SC)]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC362; RLW2004(3)SC341; 2004(5)SCALE170; (2004)5SCC583; (2004)

S.B. SINHA, J : INTRODUCTION: How far and to what extent unaided private institutions can be subjected to regulations is the core question involved in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 30.10.1998 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 3723, 4021, 4119, 5330 of 1997. THE LAW OPERATING IN THE FIELD: The Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') was enacted inter alia to provide for better organisation and development of school education. By reason of the provisions of the Act, school education, whether imparted in a government institution, a minority institution, an aided or unaided private institutions is sought to be regulated. The power of Administrator to regulate education in all the schools in Delhi, however, is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides for recognition of the institution. A scheme of management for managing the affairs of the school is required to be framed in terms ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : JT2004(4)SC158; (2004)3MLJ132(SC); 2004(4)SCALE192; (2004)4SCC460; 2004(2)LC1300(SC)

S.B. Sinha, J. INTRODUCTION:1. Validity of sale deed dated 19.6.1985 executed by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') in favour of the appellant herein was questioned by the first respondent before the High Court by way of a public interest litigation which has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.FACTUAL BACKGROUND:2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act engaged in printing and publishing of newspapers and periodicals. For grant of allotment of a suitable plot for establishing an industry, an application was filed by it before the said Authority and upon consideration thereof, a plot admeasuring 1 acre 20 guntas under the (BTM) was allotted on a consideration of Rs. 1,87,500/-. On the said amount having been deposited by the appellant, a deed of sale was executed in its favour by the authority on or about 29.6.1995. The appellant was also put in possession thereof. A licence for fencing the property was ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //