Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Year: 2006 Page 12 of about 5,322 results (0.144 seconds)

Ganpat Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(1)WLN113

..... denied the pensionary benefits on the grounds stated above. the award having been made in favour of the appellant employee of the bank, the bank has chosen to file section b. civil writ petition no. 5766/2004, challenging the award and has not chosen to implement the award.8. as the award was not implemented, the employee has ..... writ petition filed by the employee has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that for enforcement of the award a machinery has been provided under the industrial disputes act by approaching an appropriate government under rules 33c(1) and he should be left to knock at the doors of the appropriate government for seeking appropriate relief. hence ..... by the scheme and if the case of the petitioner-appellant does not fall under rule 29, then, it falls under the pre-mature retirement as employer's act to seek voluntary retirement of its employees in public interest. the scheme floated by the nationalized bank with the approval of reserve bank of india must be presumed .....

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(3)MhLj144

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present appeal, the appellant M.S.R.T.C. has challenged the judgment dated 7-12-1995 in W.P. No. 2479/1992, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition was allowed and the order of the Industrial Court dated 30-9-1992 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 1070/1990 was set aside with further direction to the appellant M.S.R.T.C. to grant promotion to the respondent sole as traffic controller w.e.f. 12-5-1982 along with all promotional benefits including monetary benefits.Facts:2. The respondent had filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, which was registered as Complaint U.L.P. No. 210/1983. He stated that he joined the appellant Corporation in service as conductor in the year 1972 in Nagpur Division of which Chandrapur was Sub-Division. In 1974, Sub-Division, Chandrapur was declared as division and as such the respondent continued to work in Chandrapur Division. In the year 1979, he made a request for transferring him from Chand...

Poppat Jamal and Sons Rep. by Its Managing Partner Mahmud Jamal Vs. N. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2006(5)CTC251; (2007)2MLJ379

..... as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. a 'fraud' is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. it is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. it is a .....

Vulavakayala Laxmi and ors. Vs. Dhulipudi Veeraswamy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)ALD132; 2007(2)ALT550

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 92 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, against the judgment and decree dated 24-8-2005 in A.S. No. 75 of 2000, passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, West Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The said appeal was filed by the 4th defendant against the decree and judgment dated 26-4-1996 passed by the trial court.2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff, Vulavakayala Subba Rao, died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In the alternative, they prayed for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of corresponding shares, to them. The 1st defendant is the son, 2nd defendant is the wife and 3rd defend...

Hanumanprasad Durgaprasad Mishra Vs. Collector and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2007(3)MhLj109

..... and other articles from the godown and the maintenance of godown accounts were technical in nature, as such collector had suggested appointment of an officer from the food section as presenting officer to facilitate proper conduct of departmental enquiry. he further submits that if the charges levelled against the petitioner were of technical nature, then it ..... justice. the requirements of natural justice depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so on. concept of fair play in action which is the basis of natural justice must depend upon the ..... be taken into account as varying what is prescribed. in short it cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or communication nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly falling within the enumerated misconduct in the .....

State of Orissa Vs. Kelu Charan Panigrahi and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2007(1)OLR293

..... cell, cuttack lodged before the superintendent of police (vigilance), central division, cuttack on 5.5.1988, a formal f.i.r. was registered under section 7/9 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (for short, 'the act'). after investigation, a p.r. was filed. it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent no. 1-accused was a dealer of ..... prove mens rea or the guilty intention on the part of the accused persons are contrary to the provisions of section 10-c of the act.6. section 10-c of the act provides that in any prosecution for the offence under the act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of ..... committed by the accused and/or the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons have committed an offence under the act. in this view of the matter, the question of applicability of section 10-c of the act to the facts of the present case does not arise. i also do not find any perversity or illegality in the .....

Abdos Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... -deposit a sum of rs. 58,22,618/- (rupees fifty-eight lakhs twenty-two thousand and six hundred eighteen only) along with interest.further equal penalty has been imposed under section 11ac. a penalty of rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) is required to be deposited by shri ram gopal agarwal, appellant no. 2. the appellant received standard packets ..... is the contention of the revenue that this process of repacking into smaller packets amounts to manufacture in terms of note 10 of chapter 28 of the central excise tariff act, 1985. proceedings were initiated and the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order for the periods 1997-98,1998-99 and 1999-2000. the ld-. advocate took us through note 10 .....

Mohammed Ghouse, Metal Weld Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

..... the above period, confiscated the seized goods with option for redemption on payment of fine, imposed composite penalty of rs.10 lakhs on m/s. mwe under section 11ac of the central excise act and rules 173q and 209 of the central excise rules, 1944 and imposed penalties under rule 209a on s/shri n.b. mohammed (rs.3 lakhs), ..... the adjudicating authority to impose any penalty under rule 209, a residual provision. secondly, there is no quantification of section 11ac penalty. it is settled law that any composite penalty cannot be imposed on a person under different penal provisions. hence the penalty of rs. 10 lakhs (rupees ten ..... formula was not considered at all by the adjudicating authority.6. as regards penalty on m/s. mwe, we find that a composite penalty was imposed on that under section 11ac and rules 173q and 209. we find infirmities in this decision of the commissioner. firstly, where a penalty was imposed under rule 173q, it was not open to .....

South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

..... the hon'ble supreme court has disapproved the reasoning of the tribunal in which it had on the basis of the definition of the word "factory" under section 2 (m) of the factories act denied the benefit of the exemption under the said notification, on the ground that the workshop was registered as a "factory". in paragraph 14 of the judgment ..... south eastern coalfield ltd. reported in (2006) 6 supreme court cases 340. the hon'ble supreme court considered the definition of the word "mine" under section 2(1) (j) of the mine's act, 1952 and in the context of the expression "precincts of a mine", it has been held that the word "precincts" in the exemption notification would mean ..... (127) e.l.t. 554 (tri. - del.) in which the tribunal, on the basis of the provisions of section 2 (m) (ii) of the factories act which defined 'factory' by excluding a mine subject to the operation of mines act, 1952, held that the benefit of the said notification no. 63/95 was not available to the goods in question which .....

Mrs. Sushma Harish Sharma and Shri Vs. Hotel Horizon Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2007)139CompCas261

..... that the stand of the respondents is not supported by the said decision. originally, the said petition was filed as a composite petition under sections 397/398 and section 155 of the act challenging certain transfers as well as an allotment of shares made at that time.before the single judge, the petitioners therein made a submission that ..... decision is not applicable in the present case. while exercising the powers under article 12, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents should have acted in terms of section 81 of the act to offer proportionate shares to all the existing shares. the failure to do so would merit cancellation of the entire allotment. it is also ..... article of a private company vesting absolute discretion with the directors to allot shares. the court observed in paragraph 15 of the judgment "even though section 81 of the companies act which contains certain requirements in the matter of issue of further share capital by a company does not apply to private companies, the directors in .....