Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: konkan passenger ships acquisition act 1973 section 14 penalties Year: 2005 Page 6 of about 64 results (0.426 seconds)

S. Haneef Vs. M. Shafath Ali Khan and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2(2007)BC25

ORDER1. These two revisions have come up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court for consideration on the issue as to:Whether a Trial Court awards compensation, while imposing a sentence, of which, fine does not form a part, in purported exercise of powers under Section 357(3), Cr.P.C. is such compensation amount not liable to be paid either before the period allowed for presenting an appeal has elapsed or when an appeal is presented, before the decision in the appeal; and whether the Appellate Court before whom an appeal is presented by the accused has discretion in the matter modulating the grant of an interlocutory order (of suspension and grant of bail) by imposing conditions as to how payment of compensation shall be made pending decision in the appeal.2. Briefly stating the facts on the backdrop are that the revision petitioner is the accused who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881...

The Senior Inspector of Police and ors. Vs. Shri Sudam Bhausaheb Bhale ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR852; 2005(5)BomCR294

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Sudam Bhausaheb Bhalekar-respondent herein was recruited as police constable in the police department on 1.7.1970. He was promoted as head constable somewhere in the year 1982. In the month of May, 1993, he was attached to Khadki Police Station. On 28.5.1993, one complaint was made against him by Ramesh Babanrao Ranaware that he was demanding bribe for returning his tempo and its documents which had met with an accident. Based on that complaint, the trap was laid by Anti Corruption Department and he was trapped accepting illegal gratification. He was tried before the Special Court, Pune for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 convicted him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine o...

Joseph Vs. S.i. of Police

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT269

..... . thereafter she alighted at muvattupuzha and went in an autorickshaw to k.s.r.t.c. bus station there, to catch a bus to kottayam. she boarded a trivandrum fast passenger bus wherein also she noticed the presence of accused no. 2. she got down at kottayam bus stand. she was frightened to go through the by lanes to reach her .....

Y.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2005(107)FLR131]; ILR2005KAR3389; 2005(5)KarLJ48

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Krishna Murthy is knocking the doors of this Court for justice for the third time in this petition on the following facts.2. Petitioner has joined the services of the respondent Corporation. He was placed on probation. His services stood discharged in terms of the proceedings dated 31.3.1994. An unsuccessful petition was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 9752 of 1994. Petition stood dismissed. A writ appeal was filed by the petitioner in W.A. No. 1991 of 1994. There was difference of opinion between the two learned judges of this Court. Matter was however referred to a third learned Judge. Learned third Judge agreed with the views of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, as he then was. It was in those circumstances that the said writ appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The said order is dated 1.10.1996 at Annexure-A.3. Petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, was take...

Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (2008)11VST766(Raj)

Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Question relates to continued exemption on inter-State sales of processed cereal-wheat for the assessment period under notification issued under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 dated March 6, 1978 which has not been withdrawn.2. The petitioner-firm is a dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner also holds a recommendation certificate issued by the Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Rajasthan, constituted under the Rajasthan Khadi and village Industries Board Act, 1955. A Notification No. F. 4(21) FD/Gr. IV/78-6 dated March 6, 1978 was issued by the State Government as a delegate of the Parliament under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 granting exemption from tax, sales of certain commodities by any dealer, having his place of business in the State, and who holds an exemption certificate without payment of any fees issued to him on the recommendation of th...

Sou. Shevanta Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : III(2005)ACC770; 2006ACJ2677; ILR2005KAR2867

..... the government may enter into many commercial and other activites which have no relation to the traditional concept of governmental activity in exercise of sovereign power. just as running of passenger buses for the benefit of general public is not a sovereign function, similarly the running of a hospital, where the members of the general public can come for treatment, cannot .....

Hiranand and anr. Vs. T.N. Khambati and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2006AP103; 2006(1)ALT613

ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by a judgment and Decree dated 11-7-2002 in A.S. No. 67 of 1996 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the order dated 14-3-1995 made in I.A. No. 795 of 1994 in I.A. No. 1089 of 1991 in O.S. No. 596 of 1991 on the file of the learned 1 Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dismissing the petition filed under Section 144 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for removal of constructions made by the appellants herein in premises No. 1-8-215/24, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad under the guise of status quo orders of the Court in I.A. No. 1089 of 1991 and for restoration of the status quo as on the date of filing of I.A. No. 1089 of 1991, was reversed and I.A. No. 795 of 1994 was ordered as prayed for.2. Originally, the said suit was filed by the petitioners herein (plaintiffs) against respondents 4 and 5...

Sridhar Lime Products Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, No. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : [2006]147STC89(AP)

Ramesh Ranganathan , J.1. Can a person, who had earlier appeared as the legal representative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, (one of the parties to the dispute before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal), hear and decide the very same case, as the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (revisional authority), on its remand by the Tribunal for de novo consideration? Is the decision taken or order passed by such a person vitiated by bias? These are the questions, which arise for consideration in this writ petition.2. The facts, to the extent necessary for the purpose of this writ petition are that, the first respondent, vide show cause notice dated January 27, 2005, informed the petitioner that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (S.T.A.T.) had remanded the appeal in T.A. Nos. 1494 of 1999 and batch dated September 28, 2004 for fresh disposal of reassessment, after supplying to the dealers concerned details of extracts of certain relevant documents, since the ...

Kelo Vs. New London

Court : US Supreme Court

..... department store. footnote 14 any number of cases illustrate that the achievement of a public good often coincides with the immediate benefiting of private parties. see, e.g. , national railroad passenger corporation v. boston & maine corp., 503 u. s. 407 , 422 (1992) (public purpose of facilitating amtrak s rail service served by taking rail track from one private company and transferring ..... parties, often common carriers, who make the property available for the public s use such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium. see, e.g. , national railroad passenger corporation v. boston & maine corp ., 503 u. s. 407 (1992); mt. vernon-woodberry cotton duck co. v. alabama interstate power co. , 240 u. s. 30 (1916). but public ownership and .....

A. Ravishankar Prasad, A. Sai Vs. Prasad Productions Private

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2007)135CompCas416

..... dale & carrington invt. (p) ltd. v. p.k.prathapan that when powers of the board of directors are used merely for an extraneous purpose like maintenance or acquisition of control over the affairs of the company, the same cannot be upheld. the directors' acts should not only satisfy the test of bonafides, they should also be ..... posting under postal certificates. though, in the case of despatch under postal certificate a general presumption of posting could be drawn, as held in akbarli a. kalvert v. konkan chemicals pvt. ltd. (supra), yet, such presumption would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. moreover, raising of a presumption does not by itself amount ..... the facts involved thereon as held in jadabpore tea co. ltd. v. bengal dooars national tea co. ltd. (1984) 55 cc 160 & akbarali a. kalvert v. konkan chemicals pvt. ltd. (1997) 88 cc 245. it is quite improbable in the present case that the petitioners would not have sent the consent letters under certificate of posting .....