Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition of beggary act 1975 chapter i preliminary Page 1 of about 334 results (0.138 seconds)

Central Relief Committee Vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Court : Karnataka

..... dispute. before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merits, it is 8 germane to notice who is the petitioner. the state of karnataka has promulgated the karnataka prohibition of beggary act, 1975. the central relief committee is constituted under chapter-iv of the said act. it reads as follows: constitution and administration4 central relief ..... reserved for orders on3101.2024, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court made the following:- order the petitioner/central relief committee constituted under the karnataka prohibition of beggary act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the act for short) is calling in question an order dated 22-09-2017 passed by the 1st ..... is the bounden duty of the central relief committee to make use of the property in question including collection of beggary cess for proper and effective implementation of the provisions of karnataka prohibition of beggary act, 1975. it is also amply clear from the reading of the orders that, no part of the property .....

State of Karnataka and Others Vs. B. Krishna Bhat and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2001KAR2030; 2001(2)KarLJ1

..... and other parks and to start security arrangements by ex-servicemen in lalbagh/cubbon park from 1-5-1999;(ii) direction to government to prohibit smoking within cubbon park, lalbagh and other park premises and to penalise anyone possessing matches or other material used for starting fire;(iii) direction ..... application for impleading, bangalore development authority, bangalore water supply and sewerage board, karnataka electricity board and bangalore telecom district were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. however, the petitions were not amended to incorporate any averment referring to ..... revenue for road maintenance by corresponding utilisation of the revenue collected'. when the said petitions were filed, only the state, the commissioner for transport in karnataka, director general of police and bangalore mahanagara palike were arrayed as the respondents. subsequently, with the permission of the court, but without filing any .....

Minerva Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1980SC1789; (1980)3SCC625; [1981]1SCR206; 1980(12)LC727(SC)

..... aggregated together and by a fiction of law deemed to be held by the family unit. there were also certain provisions in the impugned legislation which prohibited transfers and acquisitions of agricultural land with a view to effectuating the social policy and economic mission of the law. the impugned legislation also contained ..... brief on behalf of tin- indian federation of working journalists, opposing the contentions of mr. palkhivala. so nave the learned advocates-general of the state of karnataka and uttar pradesh, mr. aruneshwar gupta has filed a brief on behalf of the state of rajasthan supporting the submissions of mr. palkhivala. so has the ..... that limitation on the amending power.7. petitioner no 1 which is a limited company owned a textile undertaking called minerva mills situated in the state of karnataka. this undertaking was nationalised and taken over by the central government under the provisions of the sick textile undertakings (nationalisation) act, 1974, petitioners 2 to .....

Assam Leather Industry Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... legislation cannot exercise the power of judicial review of legislative action to the exclusion of the high courts and the supreme court, there is no constitutional prohibition against their performing a supplemental--as opposed to a substitutional--role in this respect. that such a situation is contemplated within the constitutional scheme becomes ..... provides full legislative competence to parliament in relation to the central act inasmuch as it vests all residuary powers of legislation in parliament. 104. state of karnataka v. union of india : [1978]2scr1 : that was a casewhere the question which arose was whether the central government canissue a notification to constitute the ..... number of cases (see municipal committee, malerkotla v. haji ismail ; purxotoma ramanata quenion v. union of india air 1970 goa 35 ; sujatha touring talkies v. state of karnataka air 1986 kar 21 ; city of toroute v. virgo [1896] a.c. 88 ; indu bhusan bose v. rama sundari debi : [1970]1scr443 ). the meaning .....

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and anr. Vs. State o ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2006KAR318; 2006(1)KarLJ1

..... the court they neither pleaded nor placed any material to show the overriding public interest which compels them not to honour the promise. in law there was no prohibition to delete the said lands from acquisition. on the contrary the government had the jurisdiction to give up the acquisition. therefore, all the conditions requisite for application ..... statute confers power on the government to enforce the promise made and there is no prohibition in law, then the government is bound by such promise.94. in the global meet the government made a promise to all the investors to invest in karnataka and they would provide the necessary infrastructures, such as land, power, water supply and ..... of the bda is empowered to levy tax on land and buildings. only for the purpose of levy and collection of education cess, health cess, library cess, beggary cess under section 28-c of the bda shall be deemed to be a local authority. however, section 29 empowers the government by a notification to confer on .....

Sooraram Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dis ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(6)ALD19(SC); 2008(4)AWC3875(SC); JT2008(9)SC622; RLW2008(4)SC2794; 2008(12)SCALE367; (2008)9SCC552; 2008(6)Supreme402

..... the land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, lease, gift or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government. section 44b likewise prohibits acquisition of land under part vii except for purposes specified in section 40 for private companies.35. part viii (sections 45 to 55) deals with miscellaneous ..... , the court held that the cumulative effect of all went to show that acquisition was for the public purpose of setting up technological park by government of karnataka through karnataka industrial areas development board and was, therefore, valid.140. in w.b. housing board etc. v. brijendra prasad gupta : (1997)6scc207 , land ..... of the notification read thus:the lands shown in the annexed index are required for a public purpose, that is, to establish information technological park through karnataka industrial areas development board.(emphasis suppled)138. emphasizing the fact that the acquisition was through board, this court ruled that acquisition was for a public .....

State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1

..... states having been defined in the constitution, the provisions relating thereto are exhaustive of that subject and therefore legislation in regard to center-state relationship is prohibited by necessary implication. by providing by article 164(2) that the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the legislative assembly of the state ..... under the notification dated 23rd may, 1977, which specifically excludes matters covered by the karnataka government's notification dated 18th may, 1977. reliance is placed on proviso (b) to section 3(1) of the act which prohibits the central government from appointing another commission 'to inquire into the same matter for so ..... prohibition which is necessarily based on the principle of inherent limitations has been rejected by this court in the fundamental rights case : [1973]3scr1 and in shrimati indira nehru gandhi v. shri raj narain : [1976]2scr347 .208. i am, therefore, of the opinion that though the suit filed by the state of karnataka .....

Balasaheb Venkatesh Khasbagh Alias Kulkarni Vs. Land Tribunal

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1985KAR3898; 1985(2)KarLJ569

..... amendment act, the vesting under sections 68, 69 and 71 of the klr act takes place only after surrender.section 74 of the klr act provides for prohibition of alienation and other sections provide for the disposal of surplus land etc.22. chapter v of the klr act provides for the restrictions on holding or ..... i shall deal, when it becomes necessary in the context.24. schedule i of the urban land ceiling act mentions the urban agglomerations in the state of karnataka. belgaum municipality and belgaum cantonment are included in this urban agglomerations. we are not concerned with other cities that are mentioned in the schedule.25. to ..... and tenant, and the collection of rents ; transfer and alienation of agricultural land ; land improvement and agricultural loans ; colonization.'14. on 19-12-1972, the karnataka legislature passed a resolution under clause (1) of article 252 of the constitution of india. the preamble and the resolution read thus :'whereas imposition ceiling on urban immovable .....

Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1

..... its competence;(ii) it should not be void under article 13 as being an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right or as being repugnant to an express constitutional prohibition.reference can also be made in this respect to public services tribunal bar association v. state of u.p. and anr. : [2003]1scr666 and state ..... , though species of the same genus, operate in different fields and are therefore subject to different limitations.(emphasis supplied)44. a constitution bench (7 judges) in state of karnataka v. union of india and anr. : [1978]2scr1 held, per majority, (paragraph 120) as under:. in every case where reliance is placed upon it, in ..... or state legislation (2). thus the dominant characteristic of the british constitution cannot be claimed by a federal constitution like ours.23.2. in the case of state of karnataka v. union of india and anr. : [1978]2scr1 , justice untwalia (speaking for justice singhal, justice jaswant singh and for himself), observed as follows:strictly speaking .....

Sadar Bazar Electrical Traders Association and ors. Vs. Union of India ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 40(1990)DLT251

..... mentioned in the schedule to the order with specified standards.this schedule also contained the 7 item is mentioned above in the 1976 order.this order also prohibited manufacture sale, etc., of the household electrical appliances mentioned in the schedule which did not conform to specified standards and provided for certification marks. this order ..... 1976. under clause 3 of this order, manufacture or store or sale, selling or distributing any household electricalappliance which did not conform with the specified standard was prohibited.in the schedule to the order, as many as 55 household electrical appliances were listed and their respective indian standards specified. director of industries office in a ..... 2(a)(iii) of the ec act. following this judgment of the supreme court,a learned single judge of the karnataka high court in m/s. h.a. hajee ismail & ors. v. the stale of karnataka & ors : air1975kant67 was of the view that tires and tubes could not be said to be the component parts and .....