Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(1)KLT989; [2006]145STC250(Ker)
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J.1. Common question arises for consideration in all these cases, hence we are disposing of the same by a common judgment.2. Legislative competence of the State in empowering the Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to the Tribunals and appellate authorities under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 was questioned before the learned single Judge without success. Though appeal was preferred against the various findings of the learned single Judge including the findings regarding legislative competence of the State to impose such a levy learned Counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the legislative competence of the State to levy the fee as per Section 76 of the Court Fees Act.3. Counsel for the appellant Sri. A.K. Jayasankar however contended that imposition of levy by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Court Fees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994MP137; 1994(0)MPLJ548
U.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The petitioner is an advocate based at Durg. He is a member of Durg District Bar Association. Election of officer bearers of Association for the year 1993-94 was notified. He filed nomination for the post of President. Nominations were to be scrutinised on 30-8-1993. On the same day, the first respondent, State Bar Counsel of Madhya Pradesh sent Annexure-P4 communication to the third respondent Chief Election Officer informing him that the Bar Council had stayed the election. The petitioner challenges the purported order of stay passed by the State Bar Council. The writ petition was filed on 16-9-1993. The respondents 1 to 3 appear through different counsel. Certain members of the Bar have sought to intervene. We have permitted them to intervene. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We may at once mention that Shri Tamaskar, who appeared for the first respondent, almost at the end of arguments prayed for time. We have declined his request for two r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R Reserved on :10. 04.2024 Pronounced on :28. 06.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE28H DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.2156 OF2024(GM - RES) BETWEEN: SHRI CHANNABASAPPA LINGAPPA MOKHASHI S/O LATE LINGAPPA MOKHASHI AGED78YEARS, AT NO.3138/2, WARD NO.19, S.Y.M. SOUNDATTI YELLAMMA MUNICIPALITY RAMAPUR SITE SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT 591 126 AADHAAR CARD BEARING NO.2608-0572-3477 MOBILE No.94482-30792. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD ELECTION COMMISSIONS OFFICE, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. DEPAT., OF LAW, GROUND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4453 OF2008|CARDAMOM MARKETING | | |CORPORATION & ANR. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF KERALA & ORS. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.514 OF2009A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.490 OF2011JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The two appellants before us in Civil Appeal No.4453 of 2008, who are the registered dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and/or the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the State of Kerala. They challenged the vires of S.R.O. No.226 of 2002 dated April 05, 2002 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CF Act') whereby the Government authorised the tribunals and appellate authorities constituted by or under special or local law, other than civil and criminal courts, to levy additional court fee in respect of each appeal or revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
-1- SB Civil Writ Petition No.10510/2013 Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Clerks Association Society, Jodhpur and another Versus Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order ::3. d July, 2014 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Dr. Nupur Bhati, for the petitioners. Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, for the respondent No.1. Mr. P.R.Singh, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Dinesh Ojha, for the respondent State. .... The petitioner, an association of the Advocates' Clerks has preferred this petition for writ to have direction for the respondent State to frame and promulgate schemes for the welfare of the Advocates' Clerks. As per the petitioner, the Advocates' Clerks are an integral part of the justice delivery machinery, therefore, their profession is having recognition even under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, the General Rules (Civil) 1986 and in several other enactments, but no protection to them has been provided as given to the other professionals like Advocates, Char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the resolution passed in extra ordinary General Body meeting on 08.04.2011 from the file of 2nd Respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional.O R D E R1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate, on 17.4.1985, bearing roll No.223/85. He had been elected as the President of the Vellore Bar Association, for four terms. However, a resolution had been passed in the General Body meeting of the said Association, which is the second respondent herein, on 8.4.2011. In the said resolution, it had been stated that no member of the second respondent Association could hold a post for more than two terms. If a member had served as an office bearer of the second respondent Association, for a period of two ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9068-73/2010) S.SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. ..Appellants Versus CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.11460 OF2014(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.34326/2012) THE ELDER LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..Appellants Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted.2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.3. Similar challenge is made to Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(3)ALT463; (1997)ILLJ647AP
1. In both these writ petitions, the 1st petitioner is common. In these writ petitions, common questions arise for consideration and therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of together. 2. In Writ Petition No. 10647/1995 the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Memo issued by the 2nd respondent-State Government in Memo No. 25523/13/PC.I/APEWF/94 dated May 10, 1995 and quash the same by declaring it as unjust, unfair and illegal. 3. In Writ Petition No. 24556 of 1995 the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the connected records and declare the order of the 2nd respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 137 Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.I) Dept. dated May 24, 1995 as illegal, arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner also prays for a consequential direction declaring sanctioning of loans by the respondents herein to all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC97
1. In these two appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.128/(SN)CE/JPR-I/2004 dated 1.4.2004 -- one appeal filed by M/s. J.K.White Cement Works and the other appeal filed by Revenue -- the issue relates to refund of Central Excise Duty.2.1 Shri Ravindra Narain, learned senior Advocate, mentioned that M/s.J.K. White Cement Works (M/s. J.K. in short) manufacture white cement; that they had commenced commercial production of white cement in September, 1984 which was classified by them under Tariff Item 23 (2) of the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff attracting duty on ad-valorem basis; that they also filed a price list declaring value after making certain deductions towards packing charges, which was not acceptable to the Department; that they started clearances of white cement under protest; that since there was a price change, a second price list was filed on 3.1.1985 alongwith a covering letter mentioning therein that the duty would be paid 'under protest'; that the gate pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
R - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE30H DAY OF NOVEMBER2020PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO.100141/2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI CHANDRAKANT S/O. TAMMANNA MAJAGI, AGE:49. YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE AND VICE PRESIDENT OF BELAGAVI BAR ASSOCIATION, BELAGAVI, R/O. PLOT NO.1011, CTS NO.5646, SECTOR NO.VI, M.M.EXTENSION, SHRINAGAR, BELAGAVI59001. APPELLANT (BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADV.) AND:1. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING, BENGALURU56001, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING, BENGALURU56001.3. BELAGAVI BAR ASSOCIATION BELAGAVI, DISTRICT COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI59000, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.-. 2 - 4. DINESH M. PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. ADVOCATE AND CLAIMING PRESIDENT (APPELLANT IS DISPUTING HIM AS PRESIDENT) BELAGAVI BAR ASSOCIATION BELAGAVI, DISTRICT COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI59000, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. RESPOND...
Tag this Judgment!