Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: explosives act 1884 section 4 definitions Sorted by: recent Year: 2006 Page 25 of about 5,322 results (0.144 seconds)

Lrs. of Rashida Gajdar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2007(1)WLN64

..... rashida gazdhar was serving was not even required to seek recognition from the government and therefore would not fall within the definition of recognized institution as given in section 2(s) of the act. he therefore argued that the selection scale cannot be ordered to be given to the said smt. rashida gazdhar.4. a full bench of this court in ..... -in-aid was not being provided by the government. although the full bench held that once when the government decides to provide grant-in-aid in accordance with section 7 of the act, it leaves no room for the sanctioning authority to exercise its discretion to grant or not to grant aid in respect of items covered by that ..... school is a recognized and aided non-government educational institution, just because it is not receiving any aid against its pre-primary section, that part of the institution would not be covered by the provisions of the act. reference in this connection may be made to rule 2(c) of the rules of 1993 which provides as under:(c) .....

Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. Sanghi Spinners (i) Ltd.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [2008]143CompCas64(AP)

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The company petition filed by the appellant in Company Petition No. 120 of 2000 (Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Sanghi Spinners (India) Ltd. [2007] 140 Comp Cas 161 (AP)), seeking winding up of the respondent-company was dismissed by the learned company judge. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. The main ground on which the company petition has been dismissed by the learned company judge is that the appellant was not an authorised person to represent the company and that he had also not filed any material to substantiate that he was authorised by the company to file the company petition and give evidence in the matter.3. The order of the learned company judge is assailed in this appeal mainly on the ground that the respondent in the company petition had not raised a plea that the appellant was not an authorised person to file the company petition, as such he could not produce the relevant material. ...

Thomas Kujur Vs. Republic of India

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2007(1)OLR169

..... decision of this court in the case of kishore chandra mohapatra v. panchanan singh and ors. reported in 1995 (8) ocr 241. the court in the said decision observed that section 311 of the code of criminal procedure gives very wide powers to all courts at any stage in any proceeding to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be ..... will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence under sections 120-b/420 and 34 of the indian penal code read with section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act. such type of cases mostly depend on the documents and the witnesses are examined on behalf of the ..... l. mohapatra, j.1. this application under section 482 cr.p.c. is directed against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the special judge, c.b.i., bhubaneswar in t.r. no. 24 of 2002 rejecting .....

Boni Appamma and ors. Vs. Boni Satya Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)ALD597; 2007(3)ALT670

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. Appellants are the defendants in O.S. No. 494 of 1987 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram. The respondent filed the suit, for the relief of partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one share to him. He has also prayed for a direction for ascertainment of the mesne profits.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as under:The father of the respondent, by name Boni Yerru Naidu, the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, by name Boni Satyam, and two others, by name Boni Tata and Boni Joginaidu, are brothers. The family held lands in Korukondapalem, Pinavemali and Attada Villages of Vizianagaram District. Yerru Naidu went as an illitom son-in-law to his father-in-law's house at Dharmavaram.3. The respondent pleaded that there was a partition of the joint family properties among four brothers and the shares of his father Yerru Naidu and that of Boni Saty...

Namita Das Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mohanty and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 103(2007)CLT305

..... in (1989) 31 ojd 628 (sri sri gramadevati budhi thakurani v. purna). learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that during pendency of a proceeding under sections 211 and 213 of the indian succession act, the proceeding of the civil suit ought to have been stayed.4. learned counsel for the opposite parties who are plaintiffs in the suit, at the other .....

Nilamadhab Nayak Vs. Lambodar Turuk and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2007(1)OLR179

..... , if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds-(i) that the candidate is ineligible for contesting election under sections 12,13 and 16 of this act;(ii) that the candidate is unable to produce an affidavit from the competent authority to the effect that he has not more than one spouse living and ..... rule 29(1) of the orissa municipal (delimitation of wards, reservation of seats and conduct of election) rules, 1994. the said rules have been framed under section 392 of the orissa municipal act, 1950.7. under rule 29 of the said rules it provides for scrutiny of nomination papers. rule 29(1) of the rules on which the election officer ..... was filed on the last date for receiving nomination paper. as such, it was held that the said defect is substantial within the meaning of section 36(4) of the representation of the people act, 1951 and cannot be remedied at the time of scrutiny and therefore, the nomination paper in such a situation has to be rejected. it is .....

Reliance Energy Limited Vs. the Grid Corporation of Orissa

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL267

..... the contention that oerc did not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned directions is a misreading of the provisions of the orissa electricity reform act and in particular section 11 of the said act.11. mr. r.k. mehta, advocate appearing for the contesting respondent contended that oerc has all the incidental and ancillary power as ..... the discoms. direction, if any, could be issued to the licensees by exercise of power conferred by section 10 or 11 or other provisions of the orissa electricity reform act and /or the electricity act, 2003.the oerc act in no way confers jurisdiction or power on the oerc to issue directions to the appellant.30. ..... connected therewith or incidental thereto.16. chapter ii of the act provides for establishment and constitution of orissa electricity regulatory commission. section 10 of the act prescribes the powers of the commission. section 11 of the act enumerates the functions of the commission.17. as certain clauses of section 11(1) are relied upon by mr. r.k. .....

Western Electricity Co. of Orissa Vs. the Orissa Power Transmission

Court : Appellate Tribunal for Electricity APTEL

Reported in : (2006)LCAPTEL590

..... 15. it is further pointed out that in the absence of principles and methodology or other statutory requirements, the commission should have acted strictly in terms of section 61(a) of the act. the inter-state wheeling income earned has also been taken into consideration and there is neither merit nor substance in the various ..... against depreciation amounting to rs. 48.09 crores, contrary to national tariff policy, which policy is also binding on all the respondents in terms of section 61 of the electricity act, 2003.8. secondly, it is contended that the regulatory commission has allowed repair and maintenance costs (r&m expenses) without reference to past ..... not liable to be interfered. it is contended that the provisions of national tariff policy is only a guideline and not mandatory in nature. section 61(a) of the electricity act, 2003 also enables the central regulatory commission to specify the terms and conditions for determination of tariff to transmission licensees, which shall be .....

In Re: R and B Falcon (A) Pty Ltd.

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2007)289ITR369AAR

..... no. 104 of circular no. 8 of 2005, which is said to be the precursor of the clause inserted by the finance act, 2006 in sub-section (3) of section 115wb of the act and the answer thereto read as follows: 104. whether expenditure incurred by the employer for the purposes of providing free or subsidized ..... (in india) fall within the meaning of "conveyance" or "tour and travel (including foreign travel)" in clause (f) and (q) respectively of sub-section (2) of section 115wb of the act.to resolve this controversy it is necessary to comprehend the connotation of terms, 'residence', 'tour and travel', 'conveyance' and 'transport'. they are not defined ..... (in india) fall within the meaning of |conveyance| or |tour and travel (including foreign travel)| in clauses (f) and (q) respectively of sub-section (2) of section 115wb of the act. to resolve this controversy it is necessary to comprehend the connotation of terms, |residence|, |tour and travel|, |conveyance| and |transport|. they are not defined .....

Robb (Appellant) Vs. Salamis (M and I) Limited (Formerly Known as Sala ...

Court : House of Lords

..... ltd 1945 jc 69, 73, for example, commenting on the word "dangerous" in section 14(1) of the factories act 1937, lord justice clerk cooper said: "the question is not whether the occupiers of the factory knew that it was dangerous; nor whether a factory inspector had ..... 192, 195 wills j referred to as "the contingency of carelessness". that was a case about the duty to fence all dangerous parts of machinery under section 5 of the factory and workshop act 1878: see now regulation 11 of the work equipment regulations. 27. there is a good deal of subsequent authority. in mitchell v north british rubber co ..... was 50% to blame for the accident but otherwise refused the appeal: 2005 slt 523. the appellant now appeals to your lordships' house under section 32(5) of the court of session act 1988, which states that the judgment of the court of session on any appeal from the judgment of the sheriff shall be appealable to the house .....