Court : Karnataka
..... 28(a) of the karnataka land grant rules read with rule 97 of the karnataka land revenue rules in as much as according to learned senior counsel only if grantees' land is utilized for the purposes enumerated under rule 97(4) can the authorities grant 15 the land as an alternate and in the instant case there is no such grounds made out by the respondents justifying the grant. ..... in view of these submissions, notwithstanding the findings regarding non-existence of tank within 22 guntas of land in sy.no.7, it is made clear that while considering the application for issuance of sanction plan concerned authorities of bbmp shall ensure due compliance with regard to all applicable laws including buffer zone relating to water tank/pond if any. ..... since land reserved for public purpose cannot be granted even under rule 28(a) of the karnataka land grant rules, 1969 the respondent authorities could not have resorted to rule 97(a) of the karnataka land revenue rules, 1966 to grant 0.04 guntas of land in favour of private persons. ..... thus, she submits that under the provisions of karnataka land revenue act and rules 'b' kharab land which is 6 reserved for public purpose cannot be made a subject matter of a grant. ..... thus, the respondents 6 and 7 are bonafide purchasers of the land having invested their life time savings are in the process of developing the same. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... government advocate made attempts to refer to sections 30, 35 and 55 of the karnataka excise act, 1965 we are not inclined to accept the same as the said provisions do not cover the matter of this nature to be investigated by the authorities under the act, 1965. ..... we are unable to accept this submission in view of the fact situation narrated above, more particularly knowledge of petitioners regarding liquor business being carried on by deceased jayashankar as disclosed by them in the mvc proceedings and in view of the principles of law laid down by the apex court in the case of joint collector, ranga ..... the fact remains the petitioners were aware of their husband and father respectively carrying on the business of liquor during his lifetime and pleading and submission regarding their ignorance of the same and economic condition preventing them from approaching the court for 22 long years cannot at any ..... necessary to note that in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the petitioners have pleaded that their husband and father respectively was holding a licence in form of cl-2 and was a running a retail liquor business at premises no.203, arabic college road, venkateshpura main road, bengaluru during his life time. ..... he also referred to rule 5a of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `rules, 1968) providing for renewal of licence to contend that the said rule was inserted by way of an amendment with effect from 24.06.2000 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... government advocate made attempts to refer to sections 30, 35 and 55 of the karnataka excise act, 1965 we are not inclined to accept the same as the said provisions do not cover the matter of this nature to be investigated by the authorities under the act, 1965. ..... we are unable to accept this submission in view of the fact situation narrated above, more particularly knowledge of petitioners regarding liquor business being carried on by deceased jayashankar as disclosed by them in the mvc proceedings and in view of the principles of law laid down by the apex court in the case of joint collector, ranga ..... the fact remains the petitioners were aware of their husband and father respectively carrying on the business of liquor during his lifetime and pleading and submission regarding their ignorance of the same and economic condition preventing them from approaching the court for 22 long years cannot at any ..... necessary to note that in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the petitioners have pleaded that their husband and father respectively was holding a licence in form of cl-2 and was a running a retail liquor business at premises no.203, arabic college road, venkateshpura main road, bengaluru during his life time. ..... he also referred to rule 5a of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `rules, 1968) providing for renewal of licence to contend that the said rule was inserted by way of an amendment with effect from 24.06.2000 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... that order on the ground that the alleged error in the judgment of the bombay revenue tribunal, namely that an order for possession 55 should not be made unless a previous notice required by section 14 of the bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1948, had been given, was not an error apparent on the face of the record so as to be capable of being corrected by a writ of certiorari and the following observations were ..... staff canteen workers' union and another, reported in air2000sc1508 this court observed as under: the findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not ..... we are also not impressed by the submission canvassed on behalf of the respondent no.1 that as the terms and conditions of the services of the 35 employees of the council on all other aspects like the provident fund/gpf, pension, gratuity, leave rules, scales of pay, conduct rules and other conditions of services are the same as applicable to the ..... brighton and area rent tribunal, (1950) 1 all england reporter 946, lord goddard, cj.observed that: as the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal's determination was not in accordance with ..... court to legislate. ..... bell liquors ..... liquors .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... services tax) obviating the need to travel to the seventh schedule; (ii) secondly, the provisions of article 246a are available both to parliament and the state legislatures, save and except for the exclusive power of parliament to enact gst legislation where the supply of goods or services takes place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce; and (iii) thirdly, article 246a embodies the constitutional principle ..... a quantum, since a time period is prescribed for identifying such quantum by the use of the phrase at the end of any period ; (b) section 54(3) needs to be read contextually with sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 49 and rule 86(3) and rule 89(3); and (c) both the gst council and the union government also understood that the quantum of refund was the entire unutilised itc and not only itc accumulated on account of input goods. ..... the absence of such words in the text of the legislation, the government cannot exercise its authority under section 164 of the cgst act to frame rules for other sections. ..... 84 of the union list provided for duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in india except (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption; and (b) opium, hemp and ..... urged that a rule which is contrary to the statute cannot be saved merely on the ground that either (i) the rule has been laid before parliament and is subject to its power of modification annulment or amendment; or (ii) the rule was made on the recommendations of the gst council. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... vinayaka s kulkarni, aga for r1 to r4, sri mrutyunjay s hattikeri, advocate for r5, r6 - served) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to strike down rule 3(11-c) of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, as it is violative of section 71(2)(e) of the karnataka excise act, 1965 etc. in w.p. ..... petitioners are all running liquor shops after obtaining cl-2 licence from the competent authority under the provisions of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (for ..... court after considering sections 13, 15 and 71(2) of the act, has held as follows: the act is clearly within the legislative competence of this state ..... main act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and the rules have been framed under a validly deleted authority and or within the scope of that authority, it fails to see 38 how the rule can be challenged on the ground lack of legislative competence ..... that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; the law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated law making ..... in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rule does not lack legislative competence and also does not offend article 14 of the constitution of india and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification dated 29.03.2016 and cl- (11-c) licences granted in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... vinayaka s kulkarni, aga for r1 to r4, sri mrutyunjay s hattikeri, advocate for r5, r6 - served) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to strike down rule 3(11-c) of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, as it is violative of section 71(2)(e) of the karnataka excise act, 1965 etc. in w.p. ..... petitioners are all running liquor shops after obtaining cl-2 licence from the competent authority under the provisions of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (for ..... court after considering sections 13, 15 and 71(2) of the act, has held as follows: the act is clearly within the legislative competence of this state ..... main act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and the rules have been framed under a validly deleted authority and or within the scope of that authority, it fails to see 38 how the rule can be challenged on the ground lack of legislative competence ..... that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; the law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated law making ..... in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rule does not lack legislative competence and also does not offend article 14 of the constitution of india and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification dated 29.03.2016 and cl- (11-c) licences granted in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... vinayaka s kulkarni, aga for r1 to r4, sri mrutyunjay s hattikeri, advocate for r5, r6 - served) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to strike down rule 3(11-c) of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, as it is violative of section 71(2)(e) of the karnataka excise act, 1965 etc. in w.p. ..... petitioners are all running liquor shops after obtaining cl-2 licence from the competent authority under the provisions of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (for ..... court after considering sections 13, 15 and 71(2) of the act, has held as follows: the act is clearly within the legislative competence of this state ..... main act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and the rules have been framed under a validly deleted authority and or within the scope of that authority, it fails to see 38 how the rule can be challenged on the ground lack of legislative competence ..... that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; the law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated law making ..... in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rule does not lack legislative competence and also does not offend article 14 of the constitution of india and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification dated 29.03.2016 and cl- (11-c) licences granted in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... vinayaka s kulkarni, aga for r1 to r4, sri mrutyunjay s hattikeri, advocate for r5, r6 - served) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to strike down rule 3(11-c) of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, as it is violative of section 71(2)(e) of the karnataka excise act, 1965 etc. in w.p. ..... petitioners are all running liquor shops after obtaining cl-2 licence from the competent authority under the provisions of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (for ..... court after considering sections 13, 15 and 71(2) of the act, has held as follows: the act is clearly within the legislative competence of this state ..... main act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and the rules have been framed under a validly deleted authority and or within the scope of that authority, it fails to see 38 how the rule can be challenged on the ground lack of legislative competence ..... that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; the law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated law making ..... in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rule does not lack legislative competence and also does not offend article 14 of the constitution of india and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification dated 29.03.2016 and cl- (11-c) licences granted in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... vinayaka s kulkarni, aga for r1 to r4, sri mrutyunjay s hattikeri, advocate for r5, r6 - served) this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to strike down rule 3(11-c) of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968, as it is violative of section 71(2)(e) of the karnataka excise act, 1965 etc. in w.p. ..... petitioners are all running liquor shops after obtaining cl-2 licence from the competent authority under the provisions of the karnataka excise (sale of indian and foreign liquors) rules, 1968 (for ..... court after considering sections 13, 15 and 71(2) of the act, has held as follows: the act is clearly within the legislative competence of this state ..... main act is within the legislative competence of the state legislature and the rules have been framed under a validly deleted authority and or within the scope of that authority, it fails to see 38 how the rule can be challenged on the ground lack of legislative competence ..... that delegated legislation can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary; the law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an authority delegated law making ..... in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rule does not lack legislative competence and also does not offend article 14 of the constitution of india and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the notification dated 29.03.2016 and cl- (11-c) licences granted in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!