Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: old Court: chennai Page 1 of about 17,128 results (0.083 seconds)

The Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to ...

Court : Chennai

..... to the rescue of the petitioner. v. rule making power:46. the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 5 of the explosives act, 1884, the rule making power vests only with the central government and that therefore, the state government is not competent to lay rules.47. the above ..... only generalists and not specialists; (iv) the impugned amendment has not been laid before the state legislature as mandated by section 115 of the factories act, 1948; and (v) that under section 5 of the explosives act, 1884, the rule making power vests only with the central government and hence the state government is not competent to lay the ..... such an extent as to be likely to explode on ignition.23. though the expression "explosives" is not defined in the factories act, 1948, it is defined in section 4 (d) of the explosives act, 1884. this act was already in force, when the factories act, 1948 was enacted. therefore, the normal meaning to be assigned to the expression, is .....

Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association Vs. Princip ...

Court : Chennai

..... to the rescue of the petitioner. v. rule making power:46. the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 5 of the explosives act, 1884, the rule making power vests only with the central government and that therefore, the state government is not competent to lay rules.47. the above ..... only generalists and not specialists; (iv) the impugned amendment has not been laid before the state legislature as mandated by section 115 of the factories act, 1948; and (v) that under section 5 of the explosives act, 1884, the rule making power vests only with the central government and hence the state government is not competent to lay the ..... such an extent as to be likely to explode on ignition.23. though the expression "explosives" is not defined in the factories act, 1948, it is defined in section 4 (d) of the explosives act, 1884. this act was already in force, when the factories act, 1948 was enacted. therefore, the normal meaning to be assigned to the expression, is .....

Tamilnadu Fire Works and Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government,

Court : Chennai

..... , keeping, sale, conveyance and importation of explosives throughout british india during the colonial days. section 4(d) of the explosives act defines an explosive to mean various substances used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical ..... , seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from violating the provisions of section 40 of the factories act, 1948. 2.we have heard mr.s.parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and mr.b.pugalendhi, learned special government pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.the explosives act, 1884, was enacted with the object of providing a comprehensive law regulating the manufacture .....

M/s. Sri Amman Chemicals Vs. The Chief Controller of Explosives, Petro ...

Court : Chennai

..... in ammonium nitrate and was granted a licence in form p-3 to store and trade in ammonium nitrate in terms of ammonium nitrate rules, 2015, (rules), framed under the explosive act, 1884, (act). the petitioner applied for grant of licence in form p-5 for import licence of ammonium nitrate, which was a pre-requisite for import, though the said product was freely ..... . it is further submitted that ammonium nitrate is not an item falling within the scope of explosives and special type of explosives spoken under the explosives act and has been separately defined under rule 2(b) of the rules. therefore, the power under section 6e(3)(d) of the explosives act, could not have been invoked. it is reiterated that the second respondent, not being the licencing .....

Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Venskateswara Aiyar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 18Ind.Cas.171

..... property received by any person knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of an offence under section 125 shall be liable to forfeiture. there are other provisions of a similar character in special statutes. sectionsee arms act. 24 abkari ' 15 explosives ' 10 madras forest ' 41 indian forest ' 52 and 84 merchandise marks ' 9 metal tokens ' 4 ancient monuments ' 17 opium ..... ' 12 petroleum ' 17 poisons ' 7 indian salt ' 12 madras salt ' 79 madras town nuisance ' 3 excise (act xii of 1896), sections 45, 46, 48 and 51.2. section 521 of the code of criminal procedure .....

Ramasami Aiyar Vs. Venkateswara Aiyar

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 19Ind.Cas.660; (1913)24MLJ1

..... the magistrate had no power in this case to order the property to be forfeited to government. the magistrate appears to have acted wrongly in passing his order under section 517 of the criminal procedure code, as that section applies only when an inquiry or a trial in a criminal court is concluded. as the complaint in this case was ..... of 1872 the court was not expressly given powers to pass orders respecting property 'used for the commission of an offence.' under section 415 of act x of 1872 corresponding to section 528 the provision was that the magistrate shall pass an order respecting the custody and production of such property as he thinks proper, and there ..... and miller j. held that a bottle of brandy which was to have been smuggled by the accused who were convicted under sections 55(a) and 58 of the madras abkari act could not be forfeited under section 517 of the code of criminal procedure. the learned judges confirmed the order of confiscation under the provisions of the abkari .....

Municipal Council of Vizagapatam Vs. Foster

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1918)ILR41Mad538

..... could not dissolve or suspend a statutory body and it seems to me beside the question to examine, as the learned vakil has asked us to do, the sections of the act for the purpose of ascertaining the rights that are vested in government. i therefore hold that the doctrine pressed on us has no application to this case.25. ..... council employed a contractor to construct a certain sewer. in consequence of his negligence in carrying out the work a gas main was broken with the result that an explosion took place by which injury was caused to the wife of the plaintiff and to his premises. the court of appeal presided over by the eminent judge mentioned held ..... the contractor so discharges his duty as to avoid such a danger. that was the principle enunciated in the corporation of the town of calcutta v. anderson i.l.r. (1884) calc. 445. there is another exception which is even more pertinent to the present case, namely, that in the case of statutory bodies entrusted with the performance of a .....

The Municipal Council of Vizagapatam Vs. William Foster

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1918Mad264(2); 44Ind.Cas.308

..... government could not dissolve or suspend a statutory body and it seems to me beside the question to examine, as the learned vakil has asked us to do, the sections of the act for the purpose of ascertaining the rights that are vested in government. i, therefore, hold that the doctrine pressed on us has no application to this case.16. ..... district council employed a contractor to construct a certain sewer. in consequence of his negligence in carrying out the work a gas main was broken with the result that an explosion took- place by which injury was caused to the wife of the plaintiff and to his premises. the court of appeal presided over by that eminent judge mentioned held ..... to hartley v. rochdale corporation (1908) 2 k.b. 594: 6 l.g.r. 858; geddis v. proprietors of barm reservoir (1878) 3 a.c. 430 reg. v. williams (1884) 9 a.c. 418; gibraltar sanitary commissioners v. orfila (1890) 15 a.c. 400 foreman v. canterbury corporation(1871) 6 q.b. 214; gilbert v. trinity house corporation (1886) .....

In Re: Gurumurthi Chetti

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 48Ind.Cas.988

..... (2) that the license to import being for 10,000 lbs., he is not guilty of any offence.3. as regards the first point, section 4, clauses 1 and 2 of the indian explosives act, iv of 1584, are wide enough to include crackers and the only question is, whether the crackers in the possession of the accused fall under rule 3 ..... any evidence i can hold that the crackers. are toy fireworks, especially when he took the trouble of getting licenses for crackers on the footing that they fell under the explosives act. emperor v. rachapa gurappa hattarvat 37 ind. cas. 491 and emperor v. bansidhar 5 ind. cas. 911 referred to by the petitioner's vakil proceeded on the nature of ..... of the rules framed, which exclude toy fireworks from the operation of the act. the onus is on the accused to show that the fireworks in .....

In Re: K.V.S. Ramachandra Rao

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1924Mad375; 75Ind.Cas.691; (1923)45MLJ555

..... schedule 5. the accused keeps a rice mill for converting paddy into raw rice, within three miles of the municipal limits of rajahmundry. a notification was issued under section 249 of that act and as the result of that the parties doing anything for one or more of the purposes specified in schedule 5 were obliged to take out licenses from the ..... or property' is to be read as qualifying the last clause 'any industrial process' or is to be read with each of the clauses preceding it beginning with 'storing any explosive or combustible material.' some clue to the construction of the clause (q) is given in the proviso to it wherein the words 'for private use' has to be clearly read .....