Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: old Court: us supreme court Year: 1989 Page 6 of about 104 results (0.151 seconds)

Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India, Etc., Vs. Uni ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1990SC1637; (1989)77CTR(SC)141; [1989]178ITR97(SC); (1989)3SCC634; [1989]2SCR918; [1989]74STC102(SC); 1990(1)LC157(SC)

..... other particulars as may be prescribed.the incidence of the tax is on the persons who incur the 'chargeable-expenditure' in the class of hotels to which the act applies. section 7 enjoins upon the 'person responsible for collecting' the duty to collect the taxes and pay the same to the credit of the central government. the 'room ..... of hotels wherein 'room-charges' for any unit of residential accommodation are rupees four hundred per day per individual. the 'chargeable-expenditure' as defined in section 5 of the act include expenditure incurred in or payments made in such class of hotels in connection with the provision of any accommodation, residential or otherwise, food or drink ..... the said provisions and rules to the 'assessee' shall be construed as references to an assessee as defined in this act. section 8(1) provides that every 'person responsible for collecting' the tax as defined in section 2(8) shall, before the expiry of four months from the 31st day of march in each year furnish or .....

Elel Hotels and Investments Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1990SC1664; (1989)77CTR(SC)168; [1989]178ITR140(SC); (1989)3SCC698; [1989]2SCR880; [1989]74STC146(SC); 1989(2)LC391(SC)

..... the previous year are rs. 75/- or more per day per individual. if a hotel is within this class then section 5 brings to charge the hotel's 'chargeable-receipts' as defined under section 6 of the act.the act was passed on 4-12-1980 and came into force on 9-12-1980 when it received the assent of the president ..... a bearing on the application of the contentions urged in support of the challenge to the constitutionality of the act, section 3 reads:3. (1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), this act shall apply in relation to every hotel wherein the room charges for residential accommodation provided to any person at any time during the ..... hotel or any place appurtenant thereto and where the hotel is situate in a part of building, in any other part of the building.section 6 provides:6(1) subject to the provisions of this act, the chargeable receipts of any previous year of an assessee shall be the total amount of all charges, by whatever name called, received by .....

Narendra Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC2138; (1989)2CompLJ95(SC); JT1989(2)SC338; 1989(1)SCALE1353; 1990Supp(1)SCC440; [1989]3SCR43

..... ril in the rpl properties but also the security and with regard to the approval of the financial scheme under monopolies & restrictive trade practices act, the licence under the petroleum act, explosive act, etc , sri pagaria has referred to the requirements under a large number of enactments and contended that, until requisite consents, approvals, licences ..... corpn. of india ltd. as regards convertible debenture issue, it was asserted that there is no violation of the provisions of section 81(5) of the companies act, 1956 as the section contemplates only an optional conversion of government loan into equities, in the instant case, there is a compulsory conversion of publicly held ..... time a public interest aspect of the issue of shares and debentures. in the past decades, investors in shares and equities constituted a very limited section of the public and consisted of two extreme types-either persons who could shrewdly appraise the merits of each issue and take a considered decision .....

Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC1703; (1990)1GLR489(SC); JT1989(2)SC323; (1989)3SCC321; [1989]3SCR182

..... pending 66(b) 65(a)81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- s.no. police station cr no. section disposal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) kalupur 2/88 ipc 307, 120(b) 212; under inquiry terrorist act, section 3(1)(3); explosives sections 4, 5; arms act 25(l)(a)(c); bombay police act 135(1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. from the above materials, the detaining authority has concluded that ..... the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the act.4. it is further stated that .....

Graham Vs. Connor

Court : US Supreme Court

..... applied maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," but in "a good faith effort to maintain or restore order in the face of a potentially explosive page 490 u. s. 391 situation," id. at 248-249, the district court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict. a divided panel of the ..... 694-696, and nn. 16-23 (1987) (collecting cases). [ footnote 8 ] see justice v. dennis, supra, at 382 ("there are . . . certain basic principles in section 1983 jurisprudence as it relates to claims of excessive force that are beyond question[,] [w]hether the factual circumstances involve an arrestee, a pretrial detainee or a prisoner"). [ footnote 9 ..... , the court of appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part johnson v. glick test. that test, which requires consideration of whether the individual officers acted in "good faith" or "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," is incompatible with a proper fourth amendment analysis. we do not agree .....

Thornburgh Vs. Abbott

Court : US Supreme Court

..... magazine or newspaper, plus such other materials addressed to a specific inmate as advertising brochures, flyers, and catalogues." 28 cfr 540.70(a) (1988). [ footnote 5 ] section 540.71(b) reads: ". . . publications which may be rejected by a warden include but are not limited to publications which meet one of the following criteria:" ..... , 319 u. s. 146 -147 (1943)." yet labyrinth's efforts to disseminate the article to its subscribers at marion federal penitentiary met government resistance. marion officials, acting within federal bureau of prisons (bureau) regulations, [ footnote 2/3 ] returned the magazine on the ground that "the article entitled 'medical murder' would be detrimental to ..... material in the possession of a fellow prisoner, draw inferences about their fellow's beliefs, sexual orientation, or gang affiliations from that material, and cause disorder by acting accordingly. page 490 u. s. 413 see app. 22-23, 52, 59, 88; see generally prisoners and the law 3-14 (i. robbins ed. .....

Finley Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... the jurisdictional issue was unanimous. [ footnote 2/14 ] jurisdiction was asserted on the basis of 303 of the labor management relations act, 1947, which provided: "(a) it shall be unlawful, for the purpose of this section only, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any labor organization to engage in any activity or conduct defined as an unfair ..... stevens cites in his dissent, see post at 490 u. s. 560 , n. 6, explicitly rested upon "ancillary" jurisdiction, citing krippendorf v. hyde, 110 u. s. 276 (1884), in support of its holding that "[t]he suit in equity was an exercise of jurisdiction . . . ancillary to that which it had already acquired in the action at law." 123 ..... vested -- for example, when an additional party has a claim upon contested assets within the court's exclusive control, see, e.g., krippendorf v. hyde, 110 u. s. 276 (1884); freeman v. howe, 24 how. 450, 65 u. s. 460 (1861), or when necessary to give effect to the court's judgment, see, e.g., local loan co. .....

Green Vs. Bock Laundry Machine Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... rules of bankruptcy procedure, and the federal rules of evidence. meanwhile, the committee on rules of criminal procedure and evidence of the american bar association's criminal justice section recommends deleting "to the defendant" from rule 609(a)(1), thus requiring courts simply to "determin[e] that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its ..... 121 u.s.app.d.c. 151, 156, 348 f.2d 763, 768 (1965) (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). [ footnote 15 ] section 133(b) of the district of columbia court reform and criminal procedure act of 1970, pub.l. 91-358, 84 stat. 551, d.c.code ann. 14-305(b) (1967 ed., supp. iv 1971), provided in ..... it reaches that conclusion solely through the general proposition that he is of bad character and unworthy of credit." gertz v. fitchburg railroad co., 137 mass. 77, 78 (1884). questions about the relevancy and fairness of such evidence did not abate, see n. 11, infra, and persisted even after enactment in 1975 of the federal rules of .....

Asarco Vs. Kadish

Court : US Supreme Court

..... stat. 1026. second, the language of 1(b) does not undermine the conclusion that 1(a) of the jones act extended the coverage of the enabling act's express restrictions as well as of its grant of lands. section 1(b) says that, though the mineral lands may be sold, the rights to mine and remove the minerals themselves ..... sections under page 490 u. s. 629 this act shall be of the same effect as prior grants for the numbered non-mineral sections. " 1(a), 44 stat. 1026 (emphasis added). petitioners make two points about the proper reading of this statute. first, ..... lands granted by the united states in the aid of common or public schools." 44 stat. 1026. the jones act resolved the problem of the dual regime by simply "extend[ing]" the prior grants of lands "to embrace numbered school sections mineral in character." 1, 44 stat. 1026. the statute explicitly stated that "the grant of numbered mineral .....

Mansell Vs. Mansell

Court : US Supreme Court

..... u. s. 102 , 447 u. s. 108 (1980). mrs. mansell's argument faces a formidable obstacle in the language of the former spouses' protection act. section 1408(c)(1) of the act affirmatively grants state courts the power to divide military retirement pay, yet its language is both precise and limited. it provides that "a court may treat disposable ..... as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of page 490 u. s. 589 such court." 1408(c)(1). the act's definitional section specifically defines the term "disposable retired or retainer pay" to exclude, inter alia, military retirement pay waived in order to receive veterans' disability payments. 1408(a)(4 ..... its own must fail. [ footnote 13 ] significantly, congress placed page 490 u. s. 592 each of these substantive restrictions on state courts in the same section of the act as 1408(c)(1). we think it unlikely that every subsection of 1408(c), except 1408(c)(1), was intended to preempt state law. in the face .....