Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: assam ganja and bhang prohibition act 1958 Page 1 of about 24,776 results (0.441 seconds)

Abdul Hakim Laskar Vs. the State

Court : Guwahati

..... criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the accused under section 4 of the assam ganja and bhang prohibition act, 1958.2. ..... , in any public place or in transit, any ganja, bhang, material utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this act or the rules made thereunder has been committed, and along with it any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of the offence, and (b) detain, search and arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence against this act relating to such ganja, bhang, material utensil implement or apparatus.4. ..... is true that in that case the learned counsel appearing only drew attention to section 11 of the act which deals with search and seizure inside a house by a category of officers of the departments described in that section. ..... officer of any of the department referred to in section 11 may within the prohibited area notified under this act. ..... is therefore, clear that the accused was found in possession of the ganja as alleged and as such, he is liable to be convicted under section 4 of the act.3. mr. m.a. ..... police constable on duty at the bus station found him in suspicious circumstances and on being interrogated was satisfied that he was carrying ganja even from the smell. ..... are therefore, satisfied that the assistant sub-inspector of police is an officer who authorised under section 12 of this act to seize the ganja in question. .....

State of Assam Vs. Tulsi Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [1962]Supp3SCR508

..... of the assam ganja and bhang prohibition act but that ended ..... it appears from the affidavit of the chief engineer that in pursuance of the policy of prohibition followed in the state of assam, the government or officers of the government have prepared 'lists of persons suspected or confirmed to be connected with smuggling activities', and that it was 'the policy of the government not to grant taxi permit, stage carrier, ..... the contention is perfectly sound, and the authorities would be exercising their discretion properly in refusing to accept the bid of a smuggler, because, to put such a person in charge of ferries must help to evade the prohibition laws, and that would be a relevant factor ..... the lessee shall conform to the rules made under this act for the management and control of the ferry, and may be called upon by the officer in whom the immediate superintendence of the ferry is vested, or, if the ferry is managed by a municipal or other public body under section 7 or section 7a, then by that body, to give such security for his good conduct and for the punctual payment of the rent as the officer or body, as the ..... arises for our decision in this appeal is whether the settlement by the executive engineer, golaghat in the state of assam, of the ferry at neperpatty on the second respondent, phuka chandra gohain, on january 23, 1961 was in accordance with the provisions of the northern india ferries act, 1878, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', and the rules framed thereunder. 2. .....

P. Govindaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in : (2000)72ITD57(Mad.)

..... to the second question on the point whether the tribunal was correct in holding that on the sale of properties held benami in the names of nallendran pillai and late thaimaman and others, capital gain arose in the hands of the assessee, the real owner, in spite of the provisions of the benami transactions (prohibition) act, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that : page 97 of the paper book may be seen at paragraph 'c' thereunder to demonstrate that the stand ..... the learned accountant member has rightly taken the view that the second question concerning interpretation of the provisions of the benami transactions (prohibition) act of 1988, which has undergone more than one interpretation in the hands supreme court and its impact on the facts of the case would certainly give rise to a question of law fit for reference.4.2 on the other hand the learned representative for the revenue countered to the same extent as submitted ..... negatived this claim on the ground that the transaction of purchase in the names of benamidars was in 1973 and the sale was effected in the year 1983 and the sale proceeds were also appropriated by the assessee.by the time the benami transaction (prohibition) act, 1988 came into force in 1988, the purchase and sale of benami property was completed.by the date the act came into force, there is no dispute relating to whom the benami property belongs to. .....

S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365

..... a high court may at any time, subject to the provisions of this article request any person who has held the office of a judge of that court to sit and act as a judge of the court, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a judge of that court:provided that nothing in this article shall ..... reasoning, it can be safely concluded that the statutory provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the evidence act as also those of article 74(2) of the constitution have fully safeguarded high government and official secrets and disclosure is prohibited in public interest unless the court is fully ..... of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the circular letter issued by the law minister constituted a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary and it was unconstitutional and void and if this complaint be true, and for the purpose of determining the standing of the petitioners to file the writ petition, we must assume this complaint to be correct the petitioners already had ..... entire history of the case, the various opinions expressed by top legal luminaries, statesmen, politicians and jurists right from 1958 to 1981, we are absolutely convinced that the idea of the central government of a uniform policy of transfer of cjs, so that each state has a cj from outside, is a very essential, useful, sensible and a wise one which cuts at the roots of so many ..... - .....

Sri. Srinivas V Vs. The Tahsildar

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....

Mrs Rosamma Varghese Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....

Smt Sharadamma Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....

M/s Ferns Builders And Developers Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....

Smt Janaki Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....

Sri Prakashnath Vs. State By Special Public Prosecutor

Court : Karnataka

..... . kavitha hc, hcgp for r-1) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare that the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 annexure-d and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017 annexure-e are illegal, arbitrary and ultra virus the constitution of india and consequently strike down the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 and the karnataka land grabbing prohibition (special court) regulations, 2017. in w.p ..... . having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, on perusal of pleadings and on bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we are of the considered view that following point would arise for our consideration:"whether the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 (karnataka act 38 of 387 2014) and amendment act 30 of 2020 or any of its provision requires to be struck down on the ground of same being violative of the constitution of india? ..... . vs neeta bhalla and another (6) (2012)5 scc661aneeta hada vs godfather travels and tours private limited (7) (2011)1 scc176pepsico india holdings private limited vs food inspector and another (8) (2014)16 scc1pooja ravinder devidasani vs state of maharashtra & another (9) (2018)2 gauhati law reports313state of assam, in re ..... .(2018) 2 gauhati law reports313 state of assam, in re .....