Wild Life Protection Amendment Act 2002 Section 15 - Judgment Search Results

Fr.Sebastian Fernancies Vs. the District Forest Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

offence in order to escape from the prosecution under the wild life protection act therefore the petitioner is estopped from contending of the act stood amended by virtue of the wild life protection amendment act 2003 act 16 of 2003 w e as per section 50 1 b c of the wildlife protection act 1972 and therefore they were seized from the petitioner to rs 25000 it appears that by virtue of the amendment the distinction which originally existed in the unamended section 54 material of another deer following removal of meat since the action of the petitioner was an offence under the wild life fees by way of compensation for the offence and the section does not indicate the maximum limit and it was further in possession when the mc de sealed the premises on 15th february 2010

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Gov ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2007(1)CTC513

..... for the purpose of protecting propagating or developing wild life or its environment the provisions contained in section 18 1 have been amended vide section 15 of act 44 of 1991 with ..... plaint till realisation with costs 7 o s a no 193 of 2002 has been filed by the state to set aside the judgment and ..... k misra j 1 o s a no 193 of 2002 has been filed by the defendant state challenging the judgment .....

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Forest an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2005Mad304

..... new delhi by that notification the wild life protection act 1972 hereinafter referred to as the act has been amended by including various species to the ..... destroy or damage such government property 15 section 2 37 of the act defines wild life as follows wild life includes any animal bees butterflies crustacea ..... p nos 26363 of 2001 and 1511 and 40350 of 2002 dated 30 04 2003 2 heard the learned counsel .....

Kollidam Aaru Pathukappu Nala Sangam Vs. 1.The Union of India, Rep.by ...

Court : Chennai

..... from the boundary of i protected areas notified under the wild life protection act 1972 ii critically polluted areas ..... the constitution under the constitution 42nd amendment act 1976 this part comprises of two articles ..... necessary rules under section 15 of the mines and minerals development and regulation act 1957 taking into ..... vs delhi high court bar association 2002 4 scc275 the said case related to .....

Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. Assistant Collector of Central ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1978(2)ELT653(Mad)

relevant for the purpose of this case before amendment after amendment manufacture includes any manufacture includes anyprocess incidental or process incidental have been different the change brought about by the amending act v of 1964 was only in the definition of manufacturer goods manufactured by it are not intended for sale but section 3 does not make any reference to a manufacturer and

Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan and anr. Vs. the State of Madras, Repres ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1951Mad120; (1950)IIMLJ404

protection against other sections in all the competitive walks of life the members of the non brahmin hindu community are in the supreme court of america construing the phrase the equal protection of the laws were cited to us but learned counsel negroes were freed from slavery the enactment of the 14th amendment guaranteeing to all persons the equal protection of the laws administrative action a person who assails the legislative or administrative action of govt must carry the burden of demonstrating beyond doubt with special care the educational economic interests of the weaker sections of the people particularly the scheduled castes tribes article 46 15 clause 2 of article 29 they run as follows 15 1 the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on

Muthu Krishna Naidu and ors. Vs. T.M. Thamothara Chowdary and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ351

lessees and that they are also cultivating tenants entitled to protection under the tamil nadu cultivating tenants protection act it appears contention they wanted to take the risk deliberately without any amendment of the plaint and to be satisfied with a mere entitled to protection under the tamil nadu cultivating tenants protection act it appears that on 27th july 1968 the properties were

Nirma Limited. Vs. Saint GobaIn Glass India Limited and ors.

Court : Chennai

consider it to be a legitimate act of commercial self protection for community producers to make purchases to stay on the and it was to prevent unfair trade practices the 1995 amendment came into existence pursuant to article vi of the general service tax appellate tribunal cestat under section 9c of the act and therefore the writ petition filed by m s saint 4 scc 173 grasim industries ltd v collector of customs 2002 4 scc 297 b premanand v mohan koikal 2011 4 recommendatory in nature and appeal would not be tenable under section 9c of the act against the said preliminary finding with discretion to the designated authority and that was vested on 15 7 1999 and in 2010 amendment when the term may

Madras Steel Re-rollers Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2001(129)ELT316(Mad)

of the hot re rolling steel mills annual capacity determination amendment rules 1997 inserted by notification no 45 97 central excise introduction of the new system under section 3a of the act read with rules an assessee has to pay excise duty duty on the production capacity of factories and thus introduced section 3a in the act by introduction of the new system

The Registrar, University of Madras, Chepauk, Madras - 600005 and Othe ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367

morcha 1984 2scr67 this court held that the right to life guaranteed by article 21 does take in educational facilities the the present economic and social scenario the subject of consumer protection is of vital concern and importance for all of us the writ petition has become infructuous in view of the amendment learned counsel for the petitioner has however argued that some also not noticed that the provisions of the industrial disputes act have overriding effect against any other law in relation to referred to above are unconstitutional and unenforceable 15 referring to sections 10 1 b 16 1 b and 20 1 b act 1984 tamil nadu act 18 of 1984 under section 15 of the act a commissioner was appointed for payment of