Karnataka Highways Act 1964 Section 38 - Judgment Search Results

Anil S/O Vishwanath Manjanabail Vs. The State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

anil s o vishwanath manjanabail others vs the state of karnataka anr these guidelines the said award deserves to be quashed the present acquisition initiated under the provisions of the karnataka highways act 1964 and although in terms of the policy decisions of 2013 their contention that section 24 2 of the act applies in the present case is demolished by their own consent awards under section 27 of the state act of 1964 moreover the new central rtfctlarr act 2013 does not over learned single judge in this regard repelling this contention 12 section 24 2 of the central rtfctlarr act 2013 has no

Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Mr. Sudhakar Hegde

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... appellant that the prr project being neither a project falling within section 2 of the national highways act 1956 or section 3 of the karnataka highways act 1964 does not fall within the ambit of the schedule to ..... decided to obtain additional information which was communicated to the appellant on 28 august 2014 38 the appellant provided to the seac a point wise reply to the information sought along .....

Hubballi Uraban Development Authority Vs. Hubballi Dharwad Municipal C ...

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... can take place in the no construction zone keeping in view of sections 7 and 9 of the karnataka highways act 1964 read with the circular dated 22nd december 2005 issued by the state ..... municipal corporation dharwad 580003 8 m s sri krishna milks private ltd registered office no 38 eureka junction deshpande nagar travellers bunglow road hubali58002 plaint sri krishnaji kiravatti village tq .....

Smst Transport, Represented by Its Proprietor Ameersab and Others Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

are arbitrary and illegal secondly s 48 a of the karnataka highways act 1964 for short the act empowers the state and collect such rate of fee from the user of highways for service or benefits rendered by it as may be constituted under section 17a of the karnataka motor vehicles taxation act 1957 8 the meaning of the expressions toll toll through illegal secondly s 48 a of the karnataka highways act 1964 for short the act empowers the state to collect toll addl advocate general on the other hand referred to sub section 3 a of s 19 a of the act as

G.K. Sheygoor and Another Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1991Kant161; 1990(2)KarLJ460

is dismissed no order as to costs 11 petition dismissed karnataka societies registration act 1960 17 of 1960 section 9 n once it is an highway the provisions of the karnataka highways act 1964 are applicable particularly s 48a of the act cart sheds is authorised under s 348 of the corporation act even s 103 v of the act also deals about is an highway the provisions of the karnataka highways act 1964 are applicable particularly s 48a of the act under the on such terms and conditions as he may think fit section 349 prohibits use of public places section 351 deals with including the traffic control has held as follows at page 389 of air 1989 bom there is no authority given to

Sri S Hareesh Vs. The State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... off on 19 04 2017 has held that the provisions of section 24 2 of 2013 act would not be applicable to karnataka highways act 1964 which is a state enactment which squarely applies to this ..... of land cannot lapse for this proposition learned addl govt advocate relied on paragraph no 38 of the judgment of the hon ble supreme court in the case of offshore holdings .....

T.L. Channegowda Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1994KAR3092; 1994(4)KarLJ564

decision of this court in the case of state of karnataka v dundamada shetty ilr1993kar2605 which has later on been followed as held by the full bench of this court karnataka act no 20 of 1993 is ultra vires of the constitution as amending section 70 of the karnataka land revenue act 1964 will stand allowed by holding that the aforesaid ordinance and referred to section 38 of the mysore land revenue code section 70 of the karnataka land revenue act 1964 has also of the learned advocate general that this proviso to section 38 of the mysore code does not provide for any express

A.C. Mahesh and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

to 1250 2010 and quash the order passed by the karnataka administrative tribunal dtd 2 3 10 in application nos 1212 sub sec 4 of s 213 of the m v act 1988 may incidentally encroach on the subject matter in entry state of orissa vs m a tulloch and co air 1964 sc 1284 6 d nagaraj vs state of karnataka 1977 exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 4 of section 213 of the motor vehicles act 1988 59 of 1988 union of india vs narendra singh 2008 2 scc 750 38 dhananjay malik vs state of uttaranchal 2008 4 scc 171

Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Mad)51; [1986]159ITR646(Mad)

provisions of the surtax act the division bench of the karnataka high court observed as follows p 941 it is thus a deduction permissible under section 37 of the income tax act strictly speaking this is enough to answer the question against that the tax imposed by the companies profits surtax act 1964 was essentially of the same character as income tax or deductible by adding a new clause after clause a in section 40 follows iia any sum paid on account of wealth 20itr1 sc and in cit v chandulal keshavlal co 1960 38itr601 sc the argument therefore was that surtax which is a

Mr D B Krishnegowda Vs. Tahsildhar

Court : Karnataka

passed by the hon ble special court for prohibition of karnataka land grabbing173 court hall no 1 bangalore vide annexure a ownership or lawful possession of any land grabbed under this act and offences specified in chapter xiv a of the karnataka of karnataka land reforms act 1961 karnataka land revenue act 1964 karnataka land grant rules and or other act rule or of a grabbed land belonging to the authorities specified under section 2 d would be punishable under section 5 inasmuch as w p no 49013 2018 and smt shristi widge learned 385 advocate appearing on behalf of m s poovaiah and company