and drawn our attention to the Article by J. In Kerala State Electricity Board (supra), this Supreme Court of India law firms opined that a public utility monopoly undertaking . Since the privilege to conduct the activity of establishment, maintenance and working of a TELEGRAPH could be permitted by the Government by private parties under a licence, there arose a need to regulate utilization of frequencies by the LICENSEES for carrying on the business in TELEGRAPHS. Accordingly, the learned judge convicted the appellant of both the offences charged and sentenced him to suffer one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
Hicklin[4], the meaning given by Cockburn C. This was followed by reminder dated 19. In the meanwhile, on 24. The learned author was critical on the concept of presumption as propounded in Hicklin (supra). 9 and 10 of the Imports Control Order, 1955, performs a quasi-judicial function and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice advocates in Supreme Court of India cancelling a licence. The national authorities, using powers that are not themselves incompatible with the Convention, considered that the manner in which such imagery was treated placed the focus of the work less on the erotic feelings of the character than on those of the audience, which is the primary function of pornography.
No attempt is made in the video to explain its historical background. The judgment essentially turned on the interpretation of the language of the Electricity Supplies Act. Subramanium has referred to Regina v. 2008 again requesting the Union of India, through the MoPNG and the MoF, to issue an appropriate clarification/amendment with respect o the two PSCs executed with the appellant. The terms of that section have been set out earlier and they leave no doubt that the person Suing Or being sued is the ward and that the ward is suing or being sued in the name of the Collector.
Thereafter dealing with the case, the European Supreme Court of India lawyers of Human Rights held:- 61. Therefore also when the appeals were compromised, the compromise was between the parties to the appeals, namely, the appellant and the respondent. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is not the function of the Board to so manage its affairs as to earn the maximum profit. They further held that since no attempt was made in the film to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in a voyeuristic erotic experience, the public distribution of such a video could outrage and insult the feelings of believing Christians and constitute the criminal offence of blasphemy.
As far as United Kingdom is concerned, Mr. Then again the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, was brought on the record because of s. Apart from the cast list which appears on the screen for a few seconds, the viewer has no means to knowing from the film itself that the person dressed as a nun in the video is intended to be St Teresa or that the other woman who appears is intended to be her psyche. The contention that there was no compromise in this case because there were not two parties, must hence fail.
161 of the Code and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under s. Judged in the light of well recognised principles, there can be no doubt that the Chief Controller of Imports, acting under cls. It was a case where the enhancement of electricity tariffs under the Electricity Supplies Act, 1948 was challenged. ii) Registration in respect of company/Cooperative Society/Trust in respect of a partnership firm, evidence of execution of partnership deed and filling of requisite application with payment of necessary registration fees with the Registrar of Firms.
All services, which were opened up to private investment referred to above, are EM wave based services. Visions of Ecstasy portrays, inter alia, a female character astride the recumbent body of the crucified Christ engaged in an act of an overtly sexual nature. 2007, the appellant required the Union of India, through the MoPNG and the MoF, to issue an appropriate clarification/amendment with respect to the two PSCs executed with the appellant, taking a stance that it was always the intention of the Union of India, at all stages, to give the benefits of Section 42 Deductions of the Income Tax Act, read with Article 16 of the MPSC, to all the entities who had entered into PSCs with it, including the appellant with the plea that the non-inclusion of this provision in the two PSCs signed with the appellant was a clerical error/oversight.
Hall Williams in Obscenity in Modern English Law[5] wherein the learned author observed that Hicklin (supra) gave a complete go by to the principle of mens rea which propounds a certain degree of protection to the accused. may not be driven by pure profit motive ” not that profit is to be shunned but that service and not profit should inform its actions. It was not a compromise which the Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki, made with himself though he alone signed the compromise petition.
Therefore, they fall within the definition of the expression TELEGRAPH[3] occurring under Section 3(1)(AA) of the Telegraph Act. The principal ground of attach which was accepted by the High advocates Supreme Court of India was that the Kerala State Electricity Board acted outside its statutory authority[15].