Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka preservation of trees act 1976 chapter i chapter i Page 51 of about 505 results (0.906 seconds)

Aug 21 2015 (SC)

Vikram Singh @ Vicky and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... for the extreme penalty rightly awarded to the appellants upon consideration of the relevant circumstances. reference was also made to the decisions of this court in malleshi v. state of karnataka (2004) 8 scc95 suman sood @ kamal jeet kaur v. state of rajasthan (2007) 5 scc634 vinod v. state of haryana (2008) 2 scc246and akram khan v. state of west bengal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 1992 (FN)

Rufo Vs. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail

Court : US Supreme Court

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail - 502 U.S. 367 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus RUFO, SHERIFF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, ET AL. v. INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 90-954. Argued October 9, 1991-Decided January 15, 1992* Years after the District Court held that conditions at the Suffolk County, Massachusetts, jail were constitutionally deficient, petitioner officials and respondent inmates entered into a consent decree providing for construction of a new jail that, among other things, would provide single occupancy cells for pretrial detainees. Work on the jail was delayed and, in the interim, the inmate population outpaced projections. While construction was still underway, petitioner sheriff moved to modify the decree to allow double bunking in a certain number of cells, thereby raising the jail's capacity. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)-which provides, inter alia, that "upon...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2013 (SC)

Thalappalam Ser.Coop.Bank Ltd.and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... rajasthan v. ramesh chand paliwal and another (1998) 3 scc72 kanhaiya lal omar v. r.k. trivedi and others (1985) 4 scc628 tma pai foundation and others v. state of karnataka (2002) 8 scc481 ram singh and others v. union territory, chandigarh and others (2004) 1 scc126 etc.34. we are of the opinion that when we test the meaning of ..... is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; and whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal; now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1995 (HC)

Manoj Kumar Sonthalia Vs. Vivek Goenka and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1995)2MLJ622

..... as contemplated under the code of civil procedure, or against appealable orders as found enumerated under order 43 of the code of civil procedure, the appellate court's power is preserved and is the same, as order 41 of the code has envisaged. the power of the appellate court is spelt out in order 41, rule 33 in these words: the ..... . 3 has and shall not ever claim or have any right, title or interest in respect thereof subject to the condition only that in the states of tamil nadu, kerala, karnataka, andhra pradesh, orissa (hereinafter referred to as the five states) and the union territories of pondicherry, enam, andaman and nicobar islands and lakshadweep islands (hereinafter referred as the said union .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2014 (HC)

Indian Olympic Association Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

..... of event coverage rights to the media, etc, there cannot be two opinions about existence of an overriding public or state concerns that such bodies do not remain the preserve of the few, or worse, the moneyed and the powerful. conclusions 86. for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioners contentions are rejected. the court reiterates ..... that there is a constitutional guarantee that every association shall effectively achieve the purpose for which it was formed without interference by law except on grounds relevant to the preservation of public order or morality w.p.(c)2310/2012 page 54 set out in cl. (4) of art. 19?. putting aside for the moment the case ..... agency can direct that the recipient institution should be managed in a particular manner. thus, in tma pai w.p.(c)2310/2012 page 65 foundation v. state of karnataka, 2002 (8) scc481 it was held by a larger, 11 judge bench that once aid is granted to a private professional educational institution, the government or the state .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //