Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 2006 Page 7 of about 69 results (0.584 seconds)

Duncan Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC3699; 2006(2)AWC1162(SC); 2006(1)JKJ42[SC]; JT2006(2)SC294; 2006(2)SCALE284; (2006)3SCC129

..... behalf of' each of the manufacturers and enclosed a draft of the undertaking to be signed. finally, the letter stated:.your (m/s indian explosives ltd.) willingness to participate in the retention price scheme communicated, and undertaking the enclosed form duly executed by a competent authority on behalf of ..... appellant') is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling urea (a fertilizer). in 1993, the first appellant acquired the urea plant of m/'s indian explosives ltd. (a unit of ici india ltd.). the second appellant is a shareholder in the first appellant-company (hereinafter, collectively 'the appellants').4. in 1957 ..... notified fertilizers (including urea) as an 'essential commodity', under the essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the ec act'). the fertilizer (control) order, 1957 (hereinafter 'the fertilizer (control) order') was made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the ec act. the fertilizer (control) order has been revised from time to time. .....

Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC1828; 2006(2)ALD36(SC); III(2006)BC156(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN53; [2006(2)JCR344(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC48; 2006(2)SCALE30; (2006)3SCC100; (2006)1Supreme677

..... , even if it is a deck cargo, could be subject to the limitation as provided in clause (6) of article iii, but for section 2 of the act which specifies that subject to the provisions of the act, the rules set out in the schedule shall have the effect in relation to and in connection with the carriage of goods by sea ..... thinks fit to do so. this jurisdiction of the court to stay the proceedings in appropriate cases is not limited to the jurisdiction conferred on the court in india under section 10 of the code. it is distinct from the jurisdiction conferred by the code and for this proposition reliance was placed on bhagat singh bugga v. dewan jagbir sawhney : ..... the assumption of the possession of an inherent power to act ex debito justitice and to do real and substantial justice. in exercise of this power, the high court can restrain a defendant by injunction in another court in spite of provision of section 10 of the code. in hansraj bajaj's case (supra), the high court put a note of .....

Shrikant Vs. Vasantrao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC918; 2006(2)ALT44(SC); (2006)108BOMLR320; JT2006(1)SC394; 2006(2)MhLj1; 2006(I)OLR(SC)393; 2006(1)SCALE344; (2006)2SCC682; 2006(1)LC357(SC)

..... the official gazette. accordingly, by notification dated 28.8.1998, the corporation (gmidc) was so established under the act. sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that corporation established under sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to contract, acquire, ..... refers to the three wings of governance of the 'state' that is executive, legislature and judiciary. the term 'state government' in section 9a (read with section 7 of the act) should, therefore, be understood in its ordinary and normal sense, and not with reference to the extended meaning under article 12 of ..... as 'appropriate government'. consequently, the high court held that the appellant had subsisting contracts with the appropriate government and therefore, incurred disqualification under section 9a of the act.6. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. on the contentions raised, the following questions arise for consideration:i) whether a .....

Vikram Cement Vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Indore

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2006(194)ELT3(SC); JT2006(1)SC385; 2006(1)SCALE327; (2006)2SCC351

..... the duty payable thereon. as far as the explanation is concerned, the inputs are restricted to inputs notified under rule 57a. there is no dispute that both explosives and limestone are notified under section 57a for manufacture of the final product viz. cement.5. the next relevant rule is rule 57f. what we are concerned with is sub-rule (4) ..... 1. the question whether the decision in jaypee rewa cement v. cce : 2001ecr193(sc) would apply to the cenvat rules 2000 framed under the central excise tariff act 1985 (referred to as the 'act') is to be decided on a reference made in this case. a bench of two judges of this court in commissioner of central excise, jaipur v. j ..... (hereinafter referred to as the cenvat credit) of.-(i) the duty of excise specified in the first schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said first schedule) , leviable under the act;(ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iii) xxx xxx xxx xxx(iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx(v) xxx xxx xxx xxxpaid on any inputs .....

Wachovia Bank, N. A. Vs. Schmidt

Court : US Supreme Court

..... years, the word established appearing in the first paragraph of 1348 and the word located appearing in the second paragraph were placed in the same section in the 1911 revision. the codifying act stated that provisions substantially the same as existing statutes should not be treated as new enactments. thus, it is unsurprising that, in 1947, this ..... 416 417 (internal quotation marks omitted). banks have a physical presence, the fourth circuit stated, wherever they operate branches. id. , at 417. next, the court noted, section 1348 uses two distinct terms to refer to the presence of a banking association: established and located. id., at 419. to give independent meaning to each word, the court said ..... its own motion, even if no party raises an objection. see, e.g., mansfield, c. & l. m. r. co. v. swan, 111 u. s. 379 , 382 (1884); fed. rule civ. proc. 12(h)(3). cognizant that venue is primarily a matter of choosing a convenient forum, leroy v. great western united corp., 443 u. s. 173 , .....

Gonzales Vs. Oregon

Court : US Supreme Court

..... for legitimate medical purpose is in fact a hazily defined federal standard based on its purposive reading of the csa, and extracted from obliquely relevant sections of the act. in particular, relying on its observation that the criteria for scheduling controlled substances are primarily concerned with addiction or abnormal effects on the nervous ..... of registrants), 828 (order forms), 829 (prescription requirements), 830 (regulation of listed chemicals and certain machines). it would be peculiar for the first section of this part to authorize rulemaking for matters covered by the previous part. the only sensible interpretation of 821 is that it gives the attorney general ..... specifically, the delegating provision stated that the eeoc shall issue regulations . . . to carry out this subchapter, 42 u. s. c. 12116, and the section of the statute defining disability was in a different subchapter. the court did not accept the idea that because the employment subchapter, i.e. , this subchapter, .....

Dresser Rand S.A. Vs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. and K.G. Khosla Compressor ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC871; 2006(1)ARBLR171(SC); [2006]131CompCas805(SC); 126(2006)DLT437(SC); JT2006(1)SC262; 2006(1)SCALE218; (2006)1SCC751

..... the way of either bindal or kgk subsequently pointing out that there was no arbitration agreement, when they examined the legal position or when an application under section 3 of foreign awards act was filed. 44. in u.p. rajkiya nirman nigam ltd. vs. indure pvt. ltd. [1996 (2) scc 667] negativing a contention based ..... arbitrator will not come in the way of their demonstrating that there is no arbitration agreement when the matter comes up before the court under section 3 of the foreign awards act. therefore, there is no question of either waiver or acquiescence. conclusion 45. we, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with ..... of the learned single judge of the high court that there was no arbitration agreement and consequently, upheld the rejection of the applications under section 3 of the foreign awards act. the division bench while affirming the temporary injunction granted by the learned single judge restraining dr from proceeding with the arbitration, deleted the requirement .....

United States Vs. Georgia

Court : US Supreme Court

..... one doubts that 5 grants congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment by creating private remedies against the states for actual violations of those provisions. section 5 authorizes congress to create a cause of action through which the citizen may vindicate his fourteenth amendment rights. id. , at 559 560 (scalia, j., ..... subject to longer terms of imprisonment than other prisoners); 2 house committee on education and labor, legislative history of public law 101 336: the americans with disabilities act, 101st cong., 2d sess., p. 1331 (comm. print 1990) (stating that persons with hearing impairments have been arrested and held in jail over night ..... eleventh circuit [january 10, 2006] justice stevens, with whom justice ginsburg joins, concurring. the court holds that title ii of the americans with disabilities act of 1990 validly abrogates state sovereign immunity at least insofar as it creates a private cause of action for damages against states for conduct that violates the .....

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Kgsd Canteen Employees Welfare Associa ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC845; 2006(1)CTC414; [2006(109)FLR18]; JT2006(1)SC84; 2006(2)KarLJ1; (2006)ILLJ691SC; RLW2006(2)SC1156; 2006(1)SCALE85; (2006)1SCC567; 2006(2)SLJ129(SC)

..... persons working in the canteen would be the employees of the establishment. therefore, even assuming that respondent 1 is a specified industry within the meaning of section 46 of the factories act, 1946, this by itself would not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the employees in the canteen are the employees of respondent 1.28. in ..... it may be carried out wholly or substantially by the establishment itself or the burden may be delegated to an independent contractor. there is nothing in section 46 of the factories act, nor has any provision of any other statute been pointed out to us by the appellants, which provides for the mode in which the specified ..... in the saraspur mills co. ltd. v. ramanlal chimanlal and ors. : (1973)iillj130sc where the management was under a statutory obligation in terms of section 46 of the factories act and the rules made thereunder to maintain the canteen for the workers which was being run by a co-operative society wherewith the management had nothing to .....