Explicit - Judgment Search Results

Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1998VIAD(SC)126; AIR1998SC2959; 1998(60)ECC261; 1998(98)ELT298(SC); JT1998(4)SC316; (1998)3SCC161

order1 m s mahavir aluminium ltd hereinafter referred to as the assessee had imported one extrusion press along with accessories...

Shankaranarayana Construction Co. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]239ITR902(KAR); [1999]239ITR902(Karn)

v k singhal j 1 the petitioners have claimed that by virtue of the amendment by the karnataka taxation laws...

Eastern Enterprises Vs. Apfel

Court: US Supreme Court

..... would receive lifetime health benefits it is undisputed that the nbcwas did not contain an explicit promise of lifetime benefits until the 1974 nbcwa agreement however several federal courts have found ..... fact that the statute here narrows eastern s liability to those whom it employed while explicitly preserving eastern s rights to indemnification from others thereby helping eastern spread the risk of .....

Monterey Vs. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... precedents has addressed the proper allocation of liability determinations between judge and jury in explicit terms in williamson county regional planning comm n v hamilton bank of johnson city ..... our decisions has addressed the proper allocation of liability determinations between judge and jury in explicit terms this is not surprising most of our regulatory takings decisions have reviewed suits .....

Burlington Industries, Inc. Vs. Ellerth

Court: US Supreme Court

..... return for a job benefit discrimination with respect to terms or conditions of employment was explicit less obvious was whether an employer s sexually demeaning behavior altered terms or conditions of ..... principal significance of the distinction is to instruct that title vii is violated by either explicit or constructive alterations in the terms or conditions of employment and to explain the latter .....

Federal Election Comm'n Vs. Akins

Court: US Supreme Court

..... is committed to agency discretion by law we deal here with a statute that explicitly indicates the contrary in sum respondents as voters have satisfied both prudential and constitutional ..... american civil liberties union foundation which litigated richardson in not immediately refiling with an explicit voter standing allegation fairly read and applying a fair understanding of its important purposes .....

Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Assn. Vs. 203 North Lasalle Street ...

Court: US Supreme Court

..... predecessors that died on the vine none of these contained an explicit codification of the absolute priority rule 21 and even in ..... a plan be fair and equitable none of them contained language explicitly codifying the absolute priority rule see 22 see nn 17 ..... an opportunity to propose a competing plan these requirements are neither explicitly nor implicitly dictated by the text of the statute as for .....

Minnesota Vs. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians

Court: US Supreme Court

..... 677 678 1025 1027 cleland report more importantly governor ramsey and the minnesota territorial legislature explicitly tied revocation of the treaty privileges to removal common sense explains the logic of this ..... states was competent to state that meaning more clearly the state argues that despite any explicit reference to the 1837 treaty rights or to usufructuary rights more generally the second .....

New Jersey Vs. New York

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the line within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two named federal districts the third circuit explicitly avoided determining anything about state sovereignty over the island 802 city ordinances will not apply ..... island in a new york state senate district furthermore since 1911 new york law has explicitly included ellis island in a federal congressional district finally records of the new york city .....

Oubre Vs. Entergy Operations, Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... to be deemed to be repealed unless the language of a statute be clear and explicit for this purpose norfolk redevelopment and housing authority v chesapeake potomac telephone co of va ..... discovering a defect in the original release can make binding that otherwise voidable release either explicitly or by failing timely to return the consideration received see 1 restatement second of contracts .....