Response - Judgment Search Results

Stewart Vs. Smith

Court: US Supreme Court

..... question concerning the proper interpretation of rule 32 2 a 3 we have received a response and now reverse the ninth circuit s decision i respondent robert douglas smith was convicted ..... because his appellate and rule 32 attorneys suffered from a conflict of interest between their responsibility 858 per curiam toward respondent and their allegiance to the public defender s office of .....

Hope Vs. Pelzer

Court: US Supreme Court

..... of pleadings and affidavits to raise a genuine possibility that the three named officers were responsible for the punitive acts of shackling alleged all questions raised by petitioner the plaintiff ..... overcome defendant b s assertion of qualified immunity absent some allegation that defendant b was responsible for defendant a s conduct sim 752 ii once petitioner s allegations regarding respondents .....

Barnhart Vs. Peabody Coal Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... to be treated that is by allowing the commissioner to identify the operators most responsible 172 responsible operator for this reason definitions are intended by the drafters to be given broad ..... shortly before the enactment likewise states that the act envisioned that w herever possible responsibility for individual beneficiaries would be assigned to a previous employer still in business coal .....

K. Bhaskar Vs. the Commanding Officer and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

..... and performs his duty under the direct control of the manager and the manager is responsible for receipt safe custody sales and proper accounting the stocks as such disciplinary proceeding if ..... confidential enquiry the entire report clearly indicates that the manager was main person who was responsible for the slocks in the canteen but in the disciplinary proceeding surprisingly the same manager .....

P. Dhanpal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ289CAT

..... departments ministries public sector undertakings etc considering the above films division was responsible to produce documentaries short and animation films and news magazines for theatrical ..... newsreel officer and newsreel officers were both independent posts and the incumbents were responsible for production of newsreels and documentaries independently they were posted independently incharge .....

Lekshmi G. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ234CAT

..... the respondents had to enquire into the factual reasons by affording opportunity to the officials responsible and ascertain whether the overpayment was caused due to any negligence or any malafide ..... member the overpayment occurred due to negligence and carelessness of the concerned officials being the responsible officer she should have taken due care and precaution to avoid the overpayment by .....

Bpl Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... the present noticee would not fall within the ambit of the expression incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the thrust ..... the allegations the far reaching consequences of a finding against the member the vesting of responsibility in the governing body itself all these and kindred considerations enter into the decision of .....

Videocon International Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... stated that in fact in the impugned order the person responsible for the market destortion has been identified in the following ..... to establish the charge of manipulation and hold a person responsible for the same circumstantial evidence is sufficient and from the ..... market manipulation device and for that the appellant company is responsible it is difficult to support the respondents theory but to .....

Sunil Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

..... not co operative with the department because no reply in response to various notices was filed the assessee started co operating ..... issued bills and got commission therefore he can be held responsible for the commission or billing commission and not the assessee ..... issued bills and got commission and therefore he should be held responsible for the commission and not the assessee xxii no evidence .....

B and Bros. Engg. Works Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in: (2003)84ITD243(Ahd.)

..... assessment order and confessional statement by shri ashwin b patel wherein response to question no 20 recorded under section 133a and also confessional ..... shri ram bhagat sarogi director of anjani synthetics who stated in response to certain questions that he had paid rs 2 77 ..... hold that the assessee had indulged in under invoicing iv in response to question no 14 shri hiralal patel had stated that .....