Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)145CTR(Del)560
..... as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial, of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution. this principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in henderson vs. mayor, etc. of new york 92 us 259 bk. ..... builders vs. narayan khimalal totae & ors. : air1990sc630 .8. prabhakaran nair etc. etc. vs. state of tamil nadu & ors. : [1988]1scr1 .9. miss mohini jain vs. state of karnataka & ors. : [1992]3scr658 .10. vincent panikurlangara vs. union of india & ors. : [1987]2scr468 .11. ramsharan autyanuprasi & anr. vs. union of india & ors. : air1989sc549 .12 ..... principles of valuation, and thereforee, the order is vitiated.74. the learned senior counsel dealing with the question of locus standi relied upon the judgment of the karnataka high court in appropriate authority & ors. vs. mass traders pvt. ltd. & ors. : [1993]202itr741(kar) wherein the court took the view .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... of chess? can a litigant change and choose its stand to suit its convenience and prolong a civil litigation on such prevaricated pleas? 45. the common law doctrine prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law of estoppel and well established in our jurisprudence also. the doctrine of election was discussed by lord blackburn in the ..... the first stage itself, rights of the parties are finally determined and no further enquiry remains to be held for the purposes of completing the partition, there is no prohibition to the court passing the final decree in the first instance itself. the supreme court has noted that this is often in cases of compromise. 132. this principle ..... c.c. chandre gowda. in this case, a challenge was laid to the order dated 5th october, 2010 passed by a division bench of the high court of karnataka accepting the respondent's/defendant's appeal. it appears that the appellant's suit for partition had been decreed by the trial court under order viii rule 10 of .....
Tag this Judgment!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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1238; AIR1995Delhi323; II(1995)BC42; [1998]92CompCas849(Delhi)
..... constitution unless specifically bars power of the parliament is all pervasive and there cannot be any bar by implication or any implied prohibition. it was stated that under art. 245 the words 'subject to the provisions of this constitution' did not refer to part xiv-a but only to the distribution under art ..... three lists demarcated legislative field between parliament and state and did not confer any power. then reference was also made to another decision of the supreme court in state of karnataka v. union of india : [1978]2scr1 , to show that parliament's power under entry 97 which is residuary entry in list 1 is all pervasive. it was again asserted that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha hc, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to a writ declaring the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires the constitution of india being violative of articles1420, 21 & 300-a. in w.p. no.38895/2019: between: ..... . sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires articles14 20 (1), 21 and300 of the constitution of india. in w.p. no.11975/2018: between: sri. ..... aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act382014) as85ultra vires the consitution of india being violative articles14 20, 21 and3001 in the alternative. in w.p.no.8186/2018: between: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha hc, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to a writ declaring the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires the constitution of india being violative of articles1420, 21 & 300-a. in w.p. no.38895/2019: between: ..... . sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires articles14 20 (1), 21 and300 of the constitution of india. in w.p. no.11975/2018: between: sri. ..... aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act382014) as85ultra vires the consitution of india being violative articles14 20, 21 and3001 in the alternative. in w.p.no.8186/2018: between: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... of such legislative power, are to be found in the constitution itself. the division bench further held that there is no provision in the constitution which prohibits the legislature from levying tax on the same event and the same person more than once. (d) it was also held that it was not possible ..... more over, indian forest act, 1927 which is a pre-constitutional enactment is applicable even after the commencement of the constitution. but as far as state of karnataka is concerned, karnataka forest act, 1963 is applicable and prevails over the indian forest act, 1927 as the state enactment has received presidential assent. therefore, despite -:416. :- ..... which is a pre- constitution statute was in force in british india. it replaced the indian forest act, 1878. after the reorganization of the state of karnataka, the karnataka forest act, 1963 (state act) was enacted. as per section 117 of the said act, various enactments including indian forest act, 1927 applicable to different parts .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha hc, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to a writ declaring the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires the constitution of india being violative of articles1420, 21 & 300-a. in w.p. no.38895/2019: between: ..... . sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires articles14 20 (1), 21 and300 of the constitution of india. in w.p. no.11975/2018: between: sri. ..... aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act382014) as85ultra vires the consitution of india being violative articles14 20, 21 and3001 in the alternative. in w.p.no.8186/2018: between: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha hc, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to a writ declaring the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires the constitution of india being violative of articles1420, 21 & 300-a. in w.p. no.38895/2019: between: ..... . sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires articles14 20 (1), 21 and300 of the constitution of india. in w.p. no.11975/2018: between: sri. ..... aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act382014) as85ultra vires the consitution of india being violative articles14 20, 21 and3001 in the alternative. in w.p.no.8186/2018: between: .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha hc, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to a writ declaring the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires the constitution of india being violative of articles1420, 21 & 300-a. in w.p. no.38895/2019: between: ..... . sreenidhi, aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act38of2014 as ultra vires articles14 20 (1), 21 and300 of the constitution of india. in w.p. no.11975/2018: between: sri. ..... aga and smt. kavitha h.c, hcgp) this writ petition is filed under article226& 227 of constitution of india praying to declare the karnataka land grabbing prohibition act2011(karnataka act382014) as85ultra vires the consitution of india being violative articles14 20, 21 and3001 in the alternative. in w.p.no.8186/2018: between: .....
Tag this Judgment!