Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian boilers amendment act 2007 section 10 amendment of section 9 Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 1961 Page 5 of about 73 results (0.318 seconds)

Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1962SC361; [1962]2SCR762

..... 5 in the present act. the explanation provides, inter alia, that the fact that the appellant was misled by ..... . it appears that the provisions of s. 5 in the present limitation act are substantially the same as those in s. 5(b) and s. 5, paragraph 2, of the limitation acts of 1871 and 1877 respectively. section 5a which was added to the limitation act, 1877 by the amending act vi of 1892 dealt with the topic covered by the explanation to s. ..... gajendragadkar, j.1. the short question which falls to be considered in this appeal relates to the construction of s. 5 of the indian limitation act, 1908 - 5. it arises in this way. the respondent rewa coalfields limited is a registered company whose coal-mines are situated at burhar and umaria. its registered office is at .....

The State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1962SC89; [1962]2SCR636

..... , under r. 6 of the punjab land acquisition (defence of india) rules, 1943, hereinafter called the rules, as amended by the notification of the punjab government no. 1444-hm-44/19124, dated 10th march, 1944, and published in the punjab gazette, part i, dated 17th march, 1944 (home department ..... the appeal are that the punjab government acquired on lease certain parcels of land belonging to labhu ram and nathu ram, for different military purposes, under the defence of india act, 1939 (xxxv of 1939). labhu ram and nathu ram, brothers, refused to accept the compensation offered to them by the collector and applied to the punjab government, through the collector .....

Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1963]1SCR778; [1963]Supp2SCR778

..... it appears from the record that the merchants doing business in hand-made bidis were not able to complete with businessmen manufacturing machine-made bidis. indeed, before the amending act, excise duty was imposed on machine-made bidis mainly, though not solely, for protecting the business in the former in competition with the latter. in the ..... article 217 of the constitution for appointment as judge of a high court'. section ii, which is on the same lines as section 66 of the indian income-tax act, provides that the revising authority might refer for the opinion of the high court any question of law arising out of its order, and under section ..... in several cases that it would exercise its discretion under article 136 only against a final order. see chandi prasad chokhani v. state of bihar : [1961]43itr498(sc) , indian aluminium co. v. commissioner of income tax (civil appeal no. 176 of 1959 decided on april 24, 1961.), and kanhaiyalal lohia v. commissioner of income-tax : [1962 .....

Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1669; [1961]31CompCas387(SC); [1962]2SCR339

..... as it deemed just and proper. the exercise of this power was held by this court to be quasi-judicial. 7. before it was amended by s. 27 of act 65 of 1960, s. 111 of the indian companies act, 1956 - omitting parts not material - provided : (1) nothing in sections 108, 109 and 110 shall prejudice any power of the ..... company. 3. two questions fall to be determined in these appeals, (1) whether the central government exercising appellate powers under s. 111 of the companies act, 1956 before its amendment by act 65 of 1960 is a tribunal exercising judicial functions and is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under art. 136 of the constitution, and (2 ..... order to that effect was passed by the central government. 55. before parting with the case, i may say that the report of the companies act amendment committee had recommended amendment of s. 111, and it has been amended, inter alia, by the addition of sub-s. (5a), which reads : 'before making an order under sub-section (5) on an .....

Guru Datta Sharma Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1684; [1962]2SCR292

..... private forests would be taken over for better management by the state officials as compared with ch. v of the indian forests act, 1927. the correlation between bihar act iii of 1946 now impugned and the indian forests act, 1927, is brought out in the long title of the former, the operative words of which are repeated in the ..... not vested in the crown or in respect of which notifications and orders issued under the indian forests act, 1927 are not in force.' 38. the impugned act was therefore an act supplementary to, or rather a complement of the indian forests act of 1927 and is clearly covered by the entry 'forests' in item 22 of state legislative ..... .' 36. statutes with similar provisions were also enacted by various local legislatures (vide, for example, madras forests act, 1882). this central enactment of 1878 was repealed and re-enacted in a consolidated form by the indian forests act, 1927. chapter v of the later statute - sections 35 and 36 thereof - reproduce in practically the same .....

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1762; 1961CriLJ828; [1962]2SCR195

..... stated thus : the appellant and the other accused have committed offences under the indian penal code and the prevention of corruption act. by reason of s. 7 of the criminal law (amendment) act, 1952, the said offences are triable by a special judge appointed under that act. the special judge so appointed would have jurisdiction to try the said offences ..... anything contained in any other law. if that be so, the special judge had exclusive jurisdiction to try offences covered by s. 6 of the criminal law (amendment) act, 1952. 37. at this stage, another argument of learned counsel may be adverted to. he says that some of the offences with which the accused are charged ..... magistrate equally applies to a special judge. this argument overlooks the limited purpose for which s. 8(1) is enacted. section 8 of the criminal law (amendment) act makes distinction between the power of a special judge to take cognizance of an offence and the procedure to be followed by him in trying the case. in .....

Konigsberg Vs. State Bar of California

Court : US Supreme Court

..... elected representatives with unlimited powers of control over the individual. from their distrust were derived the first ten amendments, designed as a whole to 'limit and qualify the powers of government,' to define 'cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode,' and to protect unpopular minorities from oppressive majorities. 1 annals 437. the first ..... of the ten amendments erected a constitutional shelter for the people's liberties of religion, speech, press, and assembly. this .....

Stewart Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... admissible. [ footnote 14 ] the holding in grunewald was that the defendant's answers to certain questions were not inconsistent with his previous reliance upon the fifth amendment to excuse a refusal to answer those very same questions. since defendant's testimony placed his credibility in issue, the necessary implication of that holding is that his ..... throughout the jail. in 1957, his son was ill, and he requested permission, which was granted, to visit him in custody. these witnesses all related that willie "acted normal" during this period. in fact, his only expert witness, a psychiatrist, testified that he could not decide in june, 1953, when he examined willie whether ..... the condition manifested at this trial was the result of a worsening in his mental condition since those trials and, consequently, also since the commission of the acts charged in the indictment. there may be other ways in which the jury might have used the information improperly given it by the prosecution -- we have .....

Sakharam @ Bapusaheb Narayan Sanas and anr. Vs. Manikchand Motichand S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1963SC354; (1962)64BOMLR403; [1962]2SCR59

..... is not a protected tenant'. 4. under s. 3a(1) aforesaid, it was open to the landlord, within one year of the date of the commencement of the amending act of 1946, to make an application to the mamlatdar for a declaration that the tenant was not a 'protected tenant'. no such proceeding appears to have been taken. ..... for a period of not less than six years immediately preceding either the first day of january, 1938, or the first day of january, 1945, (added by the amending act of 1946) and has cultivated such land personally during the aforesaid period. it is not disputed that the defendants-appellants became entitled to the status of 'protected tenants' ..... as a result of the operation of the act, as amended by the bombay tenancy (amendment) act, 1946 (bombay act xxvi of 1946), and under s. 3a(1) the defendants were deemed to be 'protected tenants' under the act and their rights as such were recorded in the record of rights. sections 3 and 3a .....

Ram Chandra Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1629; 1961CriLJ811; [1962]2SCR50

..... . on an application by the accused, the high court transferred it to the court of the munsif-magistrate at patna. subsequent to this order of transfer, the criminal law amendment act, 1952 (act xlvi of 1952) came into force on july 28, 1952. the case, thereafter, was forwarded to the special judge at patna in view of s. 10 of the ..... the order of the patna high court dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction for offences under s. 161, indian penal code and s. 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act, 1947 (act ii of 1947), hereinafter called the act. 2. the appellant was the construction engineer at sindhri r. b. basu was a contractor living in calcutta and ..... , be charged at the same trial.' sub-section (1) makes the offences under s. 161, indian penal code and s. 5(2) of the act triable by a special judge only. the appellant has been tried by a special judge appointed under the act. his grievance is not with respect to the competency of the court which tried him, but is .....