Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Through ... vs Ashok Khot And Anr on 10 May, 2006 cites

The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Deputy ... vs Tvl. Shree Murugan Flour Mills (P) Ltd. ... on 5 January, 2005

4. After the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4.3.1997, the unlicensed saw mills in these plywood/veneer industries were closed, no other machinery in these industries was closed because of the interpretation of the Bombay Forest Rule 1942 was that only sawing machine i.e. band saw/horizontal saw/circular saw need licence. However, in the W.P. No.3795/95, Kit Ply case Hon'ble Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur on 10.8.1998 made it clear that petitioner (i.e. Kitply's owner) do not entitle to operate any machinery or saw mills for cutting, slicing and/or peeling the timber without licence, as contemplated under rule 23(i)(ii) of Bombay Transit Forest Product Rule, 1960 (Vidarbh region, Saurashtra & Kutch areas).
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Major Genl. B.M. Bhatracharjee (Retd.) ... vs Russel Estate Corporation And Anr on 4 February, 1993

In B.M. Bhattacharjee (Major General) and Anr. v. Russel Estate Corporation and Anr. (AIR 1993 SC 1633) it was observed by this Court that "all of the officers of the Government must be presumed to know that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country, orders of the courts have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of the apex court-for that matter any court- should not be trifled with".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 16 - B P Reddy - Full Document

L.D. Jaikwal vs State Of U.P on 17 May, 1984

Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1984 SC 1374) "We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen. For it is one thing to 'say' sorry-it is another to 'feel' sorry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 119 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

M.G. Louis George Lathes vs Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By The ... on 15 April, 2002

On applications for judicial review orders can be made against ministers. In consequence such orders must be taken not to offend the theory that the Crown can supposedly do no wrong. Equally, if such orders are made and not obeyed, the body against whom the orders were made can be found guilty of contempt without offending that theory, which could be the only justifiable impediment against making a finding of contempt. (See M v. Home Office (1993 (3) All ER 537).
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 22 - A K Rajan - Full Document
1