Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition act 1961 section 105 arrest without warrant Page 6 of about 9,193 results (0.234 seconds)

Harischandra Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1996KAR1077; 1996(6)KarLJ227

..... the provisions of section 4 of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978. the facts leading to filing of appeal no. 1045 of 1992 are set-out hereinafter to appreciate the contentions urged at the bar,on may 1, 1961 an area of two acres of land ..... 15, 1965 and harischandra in turn effected alienations on subsequent date.2. the karnataka government enacted the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') to provide for the prohibition of transfer of certain lands granted by government to persons belonging to scheduled castes ..... issues:-'(a) whether the provisions of section 51 of the transfer of property act is applicable in the matters of cases covered by sections 4 and 5 of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978? (b) whether the alienee or transferee in such cases as are .....

Govt. of Meghalaya, Rep. by Director of Lotteries and ors. Vs. Under S ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2005Kant117; ILR2005KAR104

..... 24.7.2004 reads as hereunder:'in exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the lottery(regulation) act, 1998 (central act no. 17 of 1998), the government of karnataka hereby declares that the karnataka state shall be the free zone from online and internet lotteries and prohibits the sale of all computerized and online lottery tickets marketed and operated through vending machines, terminals, electronic ..... machines and tickets sold through internet in karnataka with immediate effect.'according to the petitioners, entry-40 of list-i .....

Khalimulla Khan Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1986KAR1641

..... government are incorporated in the levy order.6.2 at one stage, it was contended that the power under section 3(2) (d) of the act, had not been delegated, hence the prohibition regarding the transporting of paddy was beyond the power of the state government. the notification dated 9th june, 1978 bearing no. h.s.r. 800 ..... his case, neither the paddy grown by him nor the rice obtained therefrom has market in the state of karnataka, therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily transport the paddy or the rice outside the state ; that the levy order prohibits transporting of paddy outside the state, and as far as the rice obtained from such paddy is concerned, ..... the zones ; however, there shall be no movement of paddy from one zone to another. the director of food and civil supplies and the managing director of karnataka food and civil supplies corporation ltd., are also requested to take necessary action for implementation of the zonal order forthwith. it is further submitted that the object of .....

Manohar Bondade Vs. District Magistrate

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1989KAR2232; 1989(2)KarLJ499

..... public exhibition under section 3 of the cinematograph act. such a condition is incorporated in the conditions of the licence granted under the karnataka act also.condition no. 2 of the conditions of the licence reads thus:-'2 ..... .34. as already stated, under the provisions of the karnataka cinemas (regulation) act 1964, the licensing authority, namely - the district magistrate is empowered to grant the licences on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may impose while granting the licence. a licencee under the respective state act, is prohibited from exhibiting films other than those certified as suitable for .....

Munimasthaiah Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1995KAR2323; 1996(1)KarLJ57

..... the comprehensive development plan or outline development plan prepared under the karnataka town and country planning act, 1961 (karnataka act 11 of 1963) or declared as green belt under sub-section (3a) of section 95 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964; (karnataka act 12 of 1964),(v) unauthorised constructions made by any person on ..... necessary to wait till the screening committee to consider and dispose of the application for regularization of unauthorised construction. section 4 imposes a prohibition on the screening committee to regularise unauthorised construction of certain categories. where the application for regularization of such unauthorised construction comes within the ..... constructions enumerated in clauses (i) to (ix) of section 4, such unauthorised constructions shall not be regularised. it is a statutory prohibition against regularization by the screening committee. if there is an admitted fact or it is shown that the unauthorised construction belongs to any of .....

Rajashekhar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2000Kant215; ILR1999KAR3714; 1999(6)KarLJ219

..... tank, for developmental use, in the face of the karnataka irrigation act, 1961. in maxwell on interpretation of statutes, 12th edition, page 143, it is stated as follows:'keeping outside the act it is, however, essential not to confound what is actually or virtually prohibited or enjoined by the statutory language with what is really ..... order for stopping supply of water from the tank in question. the state has also sought to contend that under the karnataka country and town planning act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'act' of 1961) a comprehensive development plan has been formulated reserving the land in question for various purposes such as commercial purpose, besides ..... declared as a 'monument' having regard to the fact that the tank was constructed apparently about 900 years ago. the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 defines monument to mean any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock .....

Thirtharama and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its S ...

Court : Karnataka

..... ? in the context, it is relevant to refer to the definition of granted land as defined under section 3(1) (b) of the karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (the act for short): granted land ..... karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 is inapplicable to a granted land i.e., a land granted by the government to a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes but in respect of which occupancy rights were subsequently granted to a tenant under the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 ..... of such a land or any subsequent grant of occupancy rights under the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 in respect of such a land would also be null and void. therefore, granting of occupancy rights under the karnataka land reforms act, 1961, in respect of a granted land whose earlier transfer or lease .....

Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through the General Manager, Central ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 103(2007)CLT710

..... substitute of octroi duty, so also it cannot be called as a tax in aid of the funds of local authority. therefore, section 184(1) of the railways act, 1989 prohibiting levy of tax in aid of funds of local authority cannot be made applicable for claiming exemption by the railway against levy of entry tax.9. point no. (2 ..... state and is an indirect tax in which the taxable event is on the entry of goods.we also rely upon the decision in union of india v. state of karnataka (2002) 126 stc 501, and further after going through all these decisions, the irresistible conclusion is that the entry tax by no stretch of imagination can be held ..... parties, shri ashok mohanty, learned senior standing counsel of the commercial taxes department, relied upon a decision of the karnataka high court in union of india v. state of karnataka (2002) 126 stc 501, which followed the decisions in in re, sea customs act (1878), section 20(2) (supra) and collector of customs v. state of west bengal (supra). learned .....

Nitte Education Trust and Another Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1997]89CompCas390(Kar)

..... government and when no institution can be allowed to charge any fee or thing beyond the ceiling limit of the fees prescribed by the government under the education act and the karnataka prohibition of capitation fee act, it is a farce to contend that the charging of the higher fee by private educational institutions than the fees charged for similar courses in government colleges ..... field and the establishment of educational institutions and administration and management thereof, being controlled by educational laws such as the education act, the karnataka prohibition of capitation fee act or the like can be said to be subject to the control under those acts and breach of any of the conditions or charging of fees than the fee ceiling prescribed can be dealt with under .....

Sri Andanur Rajashekar S/O Late Andanur Basappa Vs. Sri Vasavi Industr ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007(1)KarSN2; 2007(2)KLJ547; 2007(2)KCCRSN69; 2007(2)KCCR1213; 2007(1)AIRKarR497; AIR2007NOC429

..... bolger reported in : ilr1988kar1413 while dealing with the interpretation of section 80 of the act has observed thus:karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (karnataka act no. 10 of 1962) - section 79 & 80 -scope and ambit-legality of transactions to be examined by authorities under act not civil court - no bar for civil court to grant specific performance of contract to ..... held that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that the agreement to sell is not prohibited under the karnataka land reforms act.9. mr. raghavendra rao, learned counsel appearing for the defendants elaborating his submissions on the two substantial questions of law would contend that ..... subject to the conditions enumerated in clause (1) and (2) of the said proviso. it is no doubt true that section 23 of the contract act prohibits an agreement which is forbidden by law or agreement, if permitted would defeat the purpose of law or is fraudulent or is opposed to the public policy. .....