Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986LC366(Karnataka); 1986(26)ELT205(Kar)
..... 111(m) of the customs act, 1962 read with section 3(2) of the import and export (control) act, 1947. however, option to redeem the goods is given on payment of fine of rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only). the ..... as follows : 'in view of the foregoing, i hold that the importation is illegal and is in violation of import trade control order no. 17/55 dated 7-12-1985 issued under section 3 of the import and export (control) act, 1947. the goods are liable for confiscation for violation of the said order and are confiscated under section 111(d) and ..... are urged on behalf of the petitioner including that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the assistant collector of customs has no power under section 48 of the act to confiscate the goods in question, inasmuch as the said goods have been whearhoused, and it is open to the petitioner to remove them at any time and in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR2437; 2000(4)KarLJ319
..... not have arrived at in hari shankar v rao girdhari lal chowdhury, the supreme court while considering the expression 'according to law' found in section 35 of the delhi and ajmer rent (control) act, observed that it should not be equated to errors of law or of fact simpliciter; it refers to the overall decision, which must be according to law ..... view the decision of the small causes court should not be interfered with in revision, though it may even be erroneous unless the conclusion is one which no judge acting judicially could reasonably reach'. 5. it is also seen from the dictum of the supreme court in m is. bhojraj kunwarji oil mill and ginning factory and another ..... for the case and pass such orders with respect thereto, as it thinks fit'. the scope of the similar expression found in section 75(1) of the provincial insolvency act, 1920, came up for consideration before the supreme court in malini ayyappa naicker (dead) by l.r. v seth manghraj udkavdas firm , in which it was observed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... required of the parties - under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976, as well as a prohibition under the karnataka rent control act, 1961, which was uncertain and also impossible of performance, as the court could not perform those acts in compliance thereof. it was pointed out that the alleged agreement was void on account ..... the identification of the lessor and the lessee; (2) the premises to be leased; (3) the commencement and duration of the term; and (4) the rent and other considerations to be paid. if the matters just mentioned are ascertained to be thus offered and accepted, and providing the agreement is supported by consideration, this ..... appellant by defendant nos. 1 & 2. the said offer having been sealed by the payment of an advance amount towards the consideration consisting of a deposit and rent, for a specified term, there was a concluded contract which the court below has failed to appreciate and acknowledge. 16 it is pointed out that defendant nos. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1996)ACC62; 1996ACJ7; ILR1995KAR2302; 1995(4)KarLJ346
..... this court reported in 1972(1) mlj 327 s.c. sohanraj v. t. gurushantappa. the court was concerned with mysore act 14 of 1969 whereby certain amendments had been carried out to the mysore rent control act of 1961. relying on a passage from crowford, statutory construction - interpretation of laws pages 110-111, the court observed that ..... that the responsibilities cast on an employer cannot be stretched beyond reasonable limits into situation where the employer has absolutely no control and that the awarding of compensation under the provisions of the act are attracted only to injuries and injurious effects that result from the employee's duties.7. there can be no ..... which resulted in his death, that compensation is still awardable. the authority concerned dismissed the application principally on two grounds, the first one being that the act would not apply, because due to a subsequent revision of salary which took place about approximately two years after the death of the appellant's husband, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... predeposit is to be made, the right of appeal is rendered illusory. in the context of property taxation under the delhi municipal corporation act, and the new delhi municipal council act, 1994, this very argument was repelled in shyam kishore vs municipal corporation of delhi. this decision was then brought before the apex court which upheld the majority view in shyam kishore vs. municipal corporation ..... award, thus leaving no scope any longer for debate. 8. we may also refer to judgments of the two division benches of the delhi high court which prescribe that orders made under section 17-b of the id act will relate back and be effective from the date of the passing of the award. secondly, they held that the amounts over and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... public sector undertakings or agencies also have their own policies in this regard. 10. the law would apply when government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, or with the ultimate purpose to transfer it for the use of private companies for stated public purpose or for immediate and declared use by private companies for public ..... .1.2009) and ii. physical possession of the land has not been taken; or, iii. compensation has not been paid. reliance is placed on government of nct of delhi vs. jagjit singh, manu/sc/0239/2015 for the above proposition. it is contended that courts have interpreted the requirement of possession being taken under section 24(2) of ..... ; suganthi suresh kumar vs. jagadishan, (2002)2 scc 420; municipal corporation of delhi vs. curnam khan, air 1989 sc 38; and union of india vs. r.p.singh, (2014)7 scc 340. the provisions of kuda act and the bda act,are not repugnant to la act, 2013. it is contended that repugnancy between two statutes is to be ascertained on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ621; 2009(4)KCCRSN238; 2009(5)AIRKarR331
..... inherited tenancy under the provisions of section 5 is a tenant within the meaning of section 3(n) of the act.21. in this contort it would be useful to the definition of tenant under section 2(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 as amended, which reads as follows:tenant means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the ..... rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be, pay and includes:(i) sub-tenant,(ii) any ..... where such decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened under the proviso to section 3 of the delhi rent control (amendment) act, 1976,(b) any person to whom a licence, as defined by section 52 of the indian easements act, 1882 (56 of 1882) has been granted.explanation i,- the order of succession in the event of the death .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... breach, it is not that, muldar would invariably get right of re-entry in no time, reprieve/protection arguably availing under section 111 of the 1882 act or the karnataka rent act, 1999. thus, the possibility of muldars getting the property to their supardi despite breach of covenants, are too remote to be mentioned. the apex court ..... things that life has to offer. restraints on the power to use the property as a delegated power of command is means as of quasi- governmental private control over the major assets of a nation. properly, thereby, is subject to regulation. the directive principles enjoin the state to reorganise the economic system by law ..... mills company vs. state of ajmer45. hon ble justice alok aradhe who edited g.p.singh s principles of statutory interpretation46, having referred to in re delhi laws act47 eruditely states as under: a distinction is said to exist between what is called conditional legislation and delegated legislation proper. in case of conditional legislation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... breach, it is not that, muldar would invariably get right of re-entry in no time, reprieve/protection arguably availing under section 111 of the 1882 act or the karnataka rent act, 1999. thus, the possibility of muldars getting the property to their supardi despite breach of covenants, are too remote to be mentioned. the apex court ..... things that life has to offer. restraints on the power to use the property as a delegated power of command is means as of quasi- governmental private control over the major assets of a nation. properly, thereby, is subject to regulation. the directive principles enjoin the state to reorganise the economic system by law ..... mills company vs. state of ajmer45. hon ble justice alok aradhe who edited g.p.singh s principles of statutory interpretation46, having referred to in re delhi laws act47 eruditely states as under: a distinction is said to exist between what is called conditional legislation and delegated legislation proper. in case of conditional legislation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(4)KarLJ317
..... of the petitioner from the petition premises.2. the respondent-landlord filed the petition in the court below under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 ('the repealed act' for short), on the ground that the petition premises is required for establishing his sons in the business of retail vending of clothes in which line ..... to be rejected as not genuine. reliance is placed by him on the decision in niranjan lal sharma's case, supra, wherein a learned single judge of the delhi high court, while appreciating the pleading of the landlady for bona fide need based on an oral partition, observed:'eviction -- bona fide need -- building in question ..... all for the court in granting the prayer for eviction.7. furthermore, this revision is required to be determined in accordance with the prevailing law. the karnataka rent act, 1999 having come into force with effect from 31-12-2001, the provisions contained therein alone will have a bearing on the outcome of these proceedings. the .....
Tag this Judgment!