Explicator - Judgment Search Results

M.C. Gangegowda Vs. Gurumallayya

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR1744

..... makes it clear that 58 years is prescribed as the age of superannuation it is explicity made clear that no employee shall have any claim for continuing in service beyond the .....

Metro Broadcasting Vs. Fcc

Court: US Supreme Court

..... s 483 1954 page 497 u s 632 plessy s standard of review and its explication have disturbing parallels to today s majority opinion that should warn us something is amiss .....

Prahlad S/O Sheshrao Rekhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through P.S.O. Ak ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991CriLJ1537

..... furnish the requisite bail bond mr sirpurkar advanced a submission that the supreme court has explicity considered the applicability of s 162 2 proviso a to release the accused on bail .....

Jnana Prabodhini Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR763; 1993LC317(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT193(Bom)

..... high court the whole question is as to whether the petitioner has got cogent or explicable reasons for not filing the petition earlier but in the conspectus of the facts of .....

Mattel Toys (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1991)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai

..... of show cause notice and the delay on the part of the department is not explicable has considerable force in view of this purely on the ground of time bar the .....

Walton Vs. Arizona

Court: US Supreme Court

..... manner in which that scheme actually operates perhaps the current majority has grown weary of explicating what some members no doubt choose to regard as hypertechnical rules that currently govern the .....

Sullivan Vs. Stroop

Court: US Supreme Court

..... bowen 870 f 2d 969 975 1989 according to the court of appeals congress nowhere explicated its use of the term child support in 602 a 8 a vi and the .....

Arcadia, Ohio Vs. Ohio Power Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... they are not of course here but the text of the section as we have explicated it above does require that the same subject matter as to which the duplicative requirements .....

Ftc Vs. Superior Ct. Tla

Court: US Supreme Court

..... u s 26 1971 first amendment protects not only ideas capable of relatively precise detached explication but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well in this respect an expressive page 493 u s .....

Minnick Vs. Mississippi

Court: US Supreme Court

..... right to remain silent or who have been coerced to abandon it both holdings are explicable in my view only as an effort to protect suspects against what is regarded as .....