Disruption - Judgment Search Results

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. 1. State of U.P. 2. Sales Tax ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1977)6CTR(All)82

c s p singh j the petitioner manufactures aluminium in its factory situated at renukoot from bauxite by subjecting it...

Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423

..... is not in dispute that the above provisions which define the653expressions terrorist act and disruptive activities provide severe punishment and also prescribe minimum sentence for some acts constituting ..... adopted by one country against another by promoting use of violence and encouraging disruptive activities feeding vague imaginations of the misguided extending false hopes and promises providing .....

United States Vs. Kokinda

Court: US Supreme Court

..... legitimate time place and manner regulations that fully protect its interests in preventing disruption of postal operations the postal regulations governing conduct on postal premises are codified ..... has not explained satisfactorily why these provisions are inadequate to deal with any disruption caused by solicitation the plurality suggests that the irksome nature of solicitation supports .....

Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: AIR1987P& H5

..... of a variety of suggestive sinister thoughts coverable under the expressions terrorist act and disruptive activity as known to the act an ordinary newspaper reading man would read the ..... neither questioned the sovereignty and territorial integrity of india nor had sought to disrupt or had intended to disrupt either directly or indirectly the sovereignty or territorial integrity of india on .....

Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. Vs. Neekelal Jainarain.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [1966]61ITR704(All)

..... question which assumes that notices under section 13 were served upon the family before its disruption the tribunal overruled the assessees objection saying that the question whether the notices were served ..... therefore a hindu undivided family could not be assessed to the excess profits tax after disruption section 25a was not made applicable to assessment and recovery of excess profits tax suppose .....

V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by Lrs. Vs. L. Bakthavatsalam (D) Thr. Lrs. .

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... against the other members coparceners for partition and separate possession may be sufficient to cause disruption of the joint status emphasis supplied in kalyani dead by lrs v narayanan and ..... wr1 approval in krishnabai ganpatrao deshmukh v appasaheb tuljaramarao nimbalkar 1979 4 scc60 68 a disruption of joint family status by a definite and unequivocal indication to separate implies separation in .....

Healy Vs. James

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the mutual interest of students faculty members and administrators in an environment free from disruptive interference with the educational process we also are mindful of the equally significant interest ..... of students contains as we have seen an explicit statement with respect to campus disruption the regulation carefully differentiating between advocacy and action is a reasonable one and petitioners .....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neekalal Jainarain

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1966All338

..... assumes that notices under section 13 were served upon the hindu undivided family before its disruption the tribunal overruled the assessee s objection saying that the question whether the noticeswere served ..... a chargeable accounting period prior to the assessment but contained no provision in respect of disruption before assessment of a hindu undivided family that had carried on a business during a .....

Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon Vs. State of Maharashtra Tr.Stf,cbi Mum ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... act to make special provisions for the prevention of and for coping with terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto quot 338 overriding effect section 25 ..... therefore it covers every person including the juvenile section 4 1 provides for punishment for disruptive activities and also uses the same terminology i e whoever section 6 provides for enhanced .....

Morse Vs. Frederick

Court: US Supreme Court

..... amendment violation because the school punished frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption it also concluded that morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because frederick ..... that the holding in fraser was not based on any showing of substantial disruption our most recent student speech case kuhlmeier concerned expressive activities that students parents .....