Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-06-2012
..... containing hazardous wastes entering indian waters without proper compliance with the provisions of the basel and the marpol conventions.however, since the question of ship breaking and distribution of hazardous wastes are being considered separately in the contempt proceedings, in these proceedings we expect and reiterate that the directions ..... in 1971, reminders were issued to protect the great barrier reef of australia. 1973 saw the adoption of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships. the said convention, commonly referred to as marpol, was adopted on 2nd november, 1973, at the international marine organization and covered pollution by : (i) ..... existence. ultimately, by the said order of 14th october, 2003, certain directions were given regarding the procedure to be adopted, with regard to ship breaking, to the central pollution control board, to prepare a national inventory for rehabilitation of hazardous waste dump sites.the state pollution control boards .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-24-2012
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Nil, dated 11.06.2010 and subsequent notion in proceedings Na.Ka.2297/A2/2010, dated 29.07.2010 and quash the same, as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.O R D E R1. Challenge in this writ petition, is to the competence of a Block Medical Officer, who exercised the power under the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, and other provisions of the Act, and closed down a Hospital, named "Get Well", Tirukoilur. The Hospital, where treatment was given, began unwell on 11.06.2010, when it was found difficult in meeting out certain defects, alleged to be violations and consequently, sealed. Another proceeding impugned in this writ petition is to the order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to open the hospital.2. According to the petitioner, he has completed bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Aug-13-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Aug-13-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, therefore, they were heard together and can be disposed of by common judgment. 2 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2012 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3440/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 in LPA No.278/2012, who are original Petitioners and they impugned the order passed by the Respondent No.1 State Government dated 30.10.2010 in Revision Application by which the Revisional Authority has set aside the orders dated 20.02.2010 and 22.06.2010 of the Collector, Nagpur and the Commissioner, State Excise respectively. The Revision Application before the Minister was filed by the Appellant before us in LPA No.278/2012 as its application seeking FLIII licence was rejected. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals are that the Appellant in LPA No.278/2012 made an application for gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-29-2012
..... relying on the constitution bench decision of this court in devi das gopal v. state of punjab, (1967) 20 stc 430, that the term purchase would mean acquisition of goods for sale for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. he would further submit that sale and purchase are different perspectives of same transaction and the ..... ordinarily sold in terms of section 4 (1) (a) of the act. while adopting the submission of shri vellapally, shri lakshmi kumaran would further contend, relying on ship breakers case (supra) that this court while explaining the meaning of the expression ordinarily sold, occurring in section 14 of the customs act, 1962 which is in ..... that value is a function of price and where price is not available, one of the methodology to determine it is cost. he would further submit, relying on ship breakers case that this court while explaining the meaning of expression ordinary sale occurring in section 14 of the customs act which is in pari materia with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-29-2012
Reported in : (2012)9SCC1; JT2012(8)SC4; 2012(4)KCCR271(SN); 2012AIRSCW4942; AIR2012SC3565; 2012(7)SCALE553
..... after 10:45 pm on november 26, 2008. the explosion destroyed the vehicle and instantly killed its two occupants (the driver and a passenger).256. the explosion was witnessed by shyamsunder rambharat choudhary (pw-171), balkrushna ramchandra bare (pw-490) and sheldon alman (pw-491). as ..... nokia devices:1. nokia 1200, imei # 353526024049451 2. nokia 1200, imei # 353526025828739manufactured: dongguan, china manufactured: dongguan, chinadate shipped: june 28, 2008 date shipped: june 26, 2008country shipped to: pakistan country shipped to: pakistan vendor product sold to: united mobile vendor product sold to: i2 pakistan (pvt.) ltd.3. nokia 1200, ..... imei # 353526025842235 4. nokia 1200, imei # 353526025840890manufactured: dongguan, china manufactured: dongguan, china date shipped: june 26, 2008 date shipped: june 26, 2008 country shipped to: pakistan country shipped to: pakistan vendor product sold to: i2 pakistan (pvt.) ltd. vendor product sold to: i2 pakistan (pvt.) ltd.5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner – Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Rules” for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Rules” for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner expired on 03.01.2008 and his legal h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-2012
Reported in : (2013)1SCC1
..... to securities markets;(f) promoting investors' education and training of intermediaries of securities markets;(g) prohibiting insider trading in securities;(h) regulating substantial acquisition of shares and take-over of companies;(i) calling for information from, undertaking inspection, conducting inquiries and audits of the stock exchanges, mutual ..... committing any causing such violation;(c) prohibiting manipulative and deceptive devices, insider trading, fraudulent and manipulative trade practices, market manipulation and substantial acquisition of securities and control;(d) crediting sums realized by way of penalties to the consolidated fund of india;(e) amending the composition of ..... further, it was also stated in the rhp that the funds raised by the company would be utilized for the purpose of financing the acquisition of townships, residential apartments, shopping complexes etc. and construction activities would be undertaken by the company in major cities of the country and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-04-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Appeal, the Appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”). For the offence punishable under Section 447, the Appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The case of the prosecution i...
Tag this Judgment!