Did you mean: 2008 4 sec 53?
2008 4 Scc 53 - Law Dictionary Search Results
Manufacture
must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use, Hindustan Poles Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2006) 4 SCC 85: (2006) 4 JT 185: (2006) 3 SCALE 601: (2006) 4 SLT 445: (2006) 3 SCJ 645: (2006)
Freedom of speech and expression
SCR 594: 1950 Cri LJ 1514. See also People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399. Carries with it the right to publish and circulate one's ideas, opinions and views, Sakal Papers (Pvt.)
Actus curiae neminem gravabit.
Singh v. Brij Lal, (1964) 2 SCR 145, (para 16); See Also CIT v. B. N. Bhattacharjee, (1979) 4 SCC 121: AIR 1979 SC 1725; Raj Kumar Dey v. Taropado Dey, (1987) 4 SCC 398; AIR 1987 SC
Keep your definitions linked to case research
Processing
filleting etc., Regional Executive, Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, 1995 (4) JT (SC) 15: (1995) 4 SCC 341. (See Maine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972) Means a sequence of operations of changes under-gone. The
Undertaking
of the Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Straw Board Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 1132: (1974) 4 SCC 681: (1974) 3 SCR 703. (iii) The word 'undertaking' is a coat of many colours, as it has
Modesty
to impure or coarse suggestions, Oxford English Dictionary (1993 Edn.); Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371. Modesty, as freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct,
Sale price
for the sale of any goods, Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1496: (1978) 4 SCC 271: (1979) 1 SCR 276. (v) S. 2(h) of the Act defines the expression 'sale price' to mean … be construed accordingly, Shree Gopal Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 SC 2054: (1971) 2 SCC 532. (ii) Under s. 4 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 the liability to pay tax
Terrorism
systematic use of coercive intimidation, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 2623 (2629): (1994) 4 SCC 602; see also Mohd Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 494. (ii) Terrorism means
Conclusive proof
Means proof as laid down under section 4 of the Evidence Act, Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta, (2005) 4 SCC 449. No contrary evidence shall be effective to displace it, unless so-called conclusive proof is inaccurate on its
Person aggrieved
v. R.P. Singh, AIR 1957 Pat 235; Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Film Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1997) 4 SCC 452; Ramchandra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 349: (1966) 2 SCR 517: (1967) SCD 61: (1966)
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
Try the research workspace - 7 days free