Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka prohibition of beggary act 1975 chapter i preliminary Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 38 results (0.097 seconds)

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 .....

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 .....

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 .....

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs. Shivakant Shukla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)

..... article shows that, instead of conferring the right to personal liberty, it assumed its existence in the first place and then proceeded by a negative drovision to prohibit its deprivation. examples of such pre- constitution rights arc : (i) rights available under the indian penal code and the criminal procedure code; (ii) rights available under ..... order dated 27th june, 1975 issued under article 359, clause (1) of the constitution. the high courts of allahabad, madhya pradesh, andhra pradesh, delhi, karnataka and rajasthan and the nagpur bench of the bombay high court before whom these writ petitions were heard on the preliminary issue as to maintainability, took the ..... to be dismissed at the threshold. the preliminary objection has been rejected for one reason or another by the high courts of allahabad, bombay, delhi, karnataka, madhya pradesh, punjab and rajasthan. broadly, these high courts have taken the view that despite the presidential order it is open to the detenus to challenge .....

Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... that said laws would be void thereafter to the extent of their inconsistency with part iii; whereas clause (2) of that article imposes a prohibition on the state making laws taking away or abridging the rights conferred by part iii, and declares that laws made in contravention of this ..... government and four representatives of statutory corporations, that is, the commissioner of bangalore municipal corporation and representatives of bangalore water supply sewerage board, karnataka electricity board, and karnataka state road transport corporation.- six members of the public (with minimum of one woman, one person belonging to sc/st, and one representing ..... population (as per last census) is a metropolitan city. different authorities like the city of bangalore municipal corporation, the city improvement trust board, the karnataka industrial area development board, the housing board and the bangalore city planning authority are exercising jurisdiction over the area. some of the functions of these .....

indra Sawhney Etc. Etc Vs. Union of India and Others, Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217

..... said that the non-implementation of the recommendations would result in demoralisation and discontent among the sebcs.280. though 'equal protection' clause prohibits the state from making unreasonable discrimination in providing preferences and facilities for any section of its people, nonetheless it requires the state to afford ..... collectivities in different states are continuing or have been included in the state list due to various considerations political or otherwise. state of karnataka is its best example. commission after commission beginning from gowda commission, venkataswamy commission and havanur commission despite having found that some of the ..... clearly 'recognisable and persistent collectivities'.12.6. ...the commission has also applied some other tests like stigmas of low occupation, criminality, nomadism, beggary and untouchability to identify social backwardness. inadequate representation in public services was taken as another important test.393. in regard to non-hindus, the .....

Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423

..... assembly on december 17, 1979, under which substantive norms were prescribed for " effective maintenance of ethical standards" by the officials. article 5 thereof prohibits law enforcement officials from inflicting, instigating or tolerating any act of torture. it was followed by another declaration on december 10, 1984, by a ..... vengeance, confession holds out a chance for indulgence. physical abuse, threat, mental coercion, prolonged detention or interrogation, inducement, promise are per se prohibited methods to obtain confession. in addition interrogator conveys to the captive that he strongly believes that the captive committed the crime and he has ..... agents ordinance no. viii of san 2005;(7) the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords, bootleggers and drug offenders act, 198 1;(8) the karnataka prevention of dangerous activities of bootleggers, drug offenders, goondas, gamblers, immoral traffic and slum grabbers act, 1985it has been said that all those laws fall .....

In Re: the Special Courts Bill, 1978

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476

..... be ministers or their collaborators were criminal misuses of power by high functionaries deleted from the court's jurisdiction were witnesses banned from testifying or the police prohibited from investigating no. top political power-wielders had in the past often escaped, even after judicial commissions had found a prima facie case against them. ..... assembly of the province of alberta which were reserved for signification of the governor-general's pleasure.8. the learned advocate general for the state of karnataka, while adopting shri sen's arguments on the preliminary objection, added that we should refuse to answer the reference because the opinion of the supreme court ..... jagannath misra, ram lal, ram jethmalani, c.m. stephen and kamlapati tripathi. the two state governments which were allowed to intervene are the state of karnataka and the state of andhra pradesh. the applications of all others for being impleaded as parties or for intervention were rejected.4. written briefs were filed by .....

Justice k.s.puttaswamy(retd) Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... records of entitlement, income or medical history. thus, sensitive information specifically stand excluded.194) we find that section 32 (3) of the aadhaar act specifically prohibits the authority from collecting, storing or maintaining, either directly or indirectly any information about the purpose of authentication. the proviso to regulation 26 of authentication regulations ..... support of his submission regarding violation of article 20(3) as well as article 21 of the constitution is selvi and others vs. state of karnataka, 2010(7) scc263 in the above case this court had considered as to whether certain scientific techniques, namely, narcoanalysis, 229 polygraph examination and the ..... by this constitution is fundamental rights which may be called human rights as well. speaking for the vision of our founding fathers, in state of karnataka & anr. v. shri ranganatha reddy & anr.17, this court speaking through justice krishna iyer observed: the social philosophy of the constitution shapes .....