Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... firm represented by its gpa agent prestige estates projects private limited a company incorporated under the companies act1956having its registered office at:195. the falcon house, no1 main guard cross road, bengaluru - 560001 represented by its authorized signatory mr arvind pai ...petitioner (by sri. uday holla, sr. cl. for sri. m.b. ..... vs. directorate of enforcement and others38(1994) 4 scc468 gujarat agro industries co. ltd. vs. municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad and others.39. (1978) 3 scc544 madhav hayawadanrao hoskot vs. state of maharashtra.40. (1997) 3 scc261 l. chandra kumar vs. union of india and others. contentions raised by ..... and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to quash the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act, 2011 ('the act') and quash the proceedings in lgc (s) no.1611 of2017in karnataka land grabbing prohibition special court, kandaya bhavana ('the special court') 124 vide annexure .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... ] for equal rights," in the language of 1343(3). title 42 u.s.c. 1981 and 1982, derived from 1 of the 1866 civil rights act and codified at 1977 and 1978 of the revised statutes, enunciate certain rights and state that they are to be enjoyed on the same basis by all persons. thus, these statutes both ..... . at 383 u. s. 753 ; screws v. united states, 325 u. s. 91 , 325 u. s. 119 (1945) ("there are, however, no differences in the basic rights guarded [by 241 and 242]") (opinion of rutledge, j.). [ footnote 3/35 ] another early case, united states v. cruikshank, 92 u. s. 542 (1876), concerned convictions under what is now ..... scrutiny here is equally correct. the explanatory note accompanying 629(16) makes perfectly clear that the revisers attributed to congress the understanding that the particularly described rights of 1977 and 1978 were protected against deprivation under color of state law by the words "rights . . . secured by the constitution" in 1979. out of an abundance of caution, however, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... determinative significance that the secretary was once of the view that noncompliance with 6010 did not provide sufficient reason to cut off funds under the act. as the court recognizes, the 1978 amendments have convinced him that 6010 rights must be respected; [ footnote 2/15 ] but if the secretary's original view was correct, ..... that the senate would include a funding sanction is, of course, wholly inconsistent with respondents' argument that congress was acting pursuant to 5 of the fourteenth amendment. [ footnote 16 ] nor is the contrary proved by a 1978 amendment to 6010 which provides: "the rights of persons with developmental disabilities described in findings made in this section ..... and training programs, and are not pertinent here. [ footnote 10 ] the provisions of 6063 were reworded and recodified in 1978. section 6063(b)(5)(c) (1976 ed., supp. iii) replaced 133(b)(24) of the act, as added and renumbered, 89 stat. 491, 506, 42 u.s.c. 6063(b)(24), which required a somewhat .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... u. s. 629 (1980) (brennan, j., dissenting). [ footnote 2/2 ] see, e.g., wilkey, the exclusionary rule: why suppress valid evidence?, 62 judicature 215 (1978); s. schlesinger, exclusionary injustice (1977). [ footnote 2/3 ] in deciding to enforce the exclusionary rule as a matter of state law, the california supreme court clearly recognized ..... deciding that question before turning to the good faith issue. [ footnote 26 ] indeed, it frequently will be difficult to determine whether the officers acted reasonably without resolving the fourth amendment issue. even if the fourth amendment question is not one of broad import, reviewing courts could decide in particular ..... the district court granted the motions in part, concluding that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. although recognizing that officer rombach had acted in good faith, the court rejected the government's suggestion that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in .....
Tag this Judgment!