Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka repealing and amending act 2002 section 2 definitions Court: supreme court of india Page 7 of about 1,133 results (0.151 seconds)

Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1988SC1487; (1988)2CompLJ161(SC); JT1988(2)SC448; 1988(1)SCALE1055; (1988)3SCC263; [1998]Supp1SCR348; [1988]70STC162(SC)

..... how it was understood by some. this decision in our opinion concludes all the issues in the instant appeal.20. in 1970 purchase tax was introduced. the karnataka sales tax act was amended by karnataka act 9 of 1970 and section 6 was substituted. the new section 6 provided for the levy of purchase tax on every dealer who in the course of ..... there was no contract was made in the context of agency contract between the coffee board and the grower.10. in or about 1957 karnataka sales tax act, 1957 was enacted and the mysore sales tax act, 1948 repealed. 'sale' is defined in section 2(t) and 'dealer' in section 2(k) of the said act. growers of agricultural produce are ..... the coffee market expansion act, 1942 (the title of the act was later changed to coffee act in 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was enacted and the ordinance repealed. the act was to remain in operation for the duration of the second world war and a period of one year thereafter. the act, inter alia, added a new sub .....

Kulwant Kaur and ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by Lrs. and ors. E ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC1273; JT2001(4)SC158; 2001(2)SCALE634; (2001)4SCC262; [2001]2SCR525

..... records; provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legislature of the state. (noticed again for convenience). thus even in cases falling under clause (2), where state law prevail, such ..... : provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legislature of the state'. 12. article 254 thus maintains parliamentary supremacy in matters under list i and list iii (list i ..... or repealed by the parliament by enacting law subsequently both by virtue of clause (1) or proviso to clause (2). 19. it is in this context a decision of this court (i.t.c. & ors. v. state of karnataka & ors : 1985 (suppl) scc 476 may also be noted, wherein this court in paragraph 18 of the judgment (see page .....

Mukesh Kumar . Vs. State of Bihar .

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... laid by the hon'ble supreme court in civil appeal no.1968/2006 in case title state of karnataka v/s uma devi. a) appointment being held by the competent authority. b) till the date of appointment or repealment appointments were made against the acceptance and vacant post. c) appointee must be qualified as per the ..... during transition period and it shall not be open to any employee to question decision of committee of secretaries: provided that the state government shall be competent to amend, modify, alter or substitute the scheme so framed for removal of any difficulty in its implementation. 2 3. accordingly, the education department of the government of ..... the government within four months from the date of enforcement of the present act: provided that it shall be open to the government to modify, amend or suggest modifications or amendment in the scheme and the scheme thereafter shall be made operational in such form and intent as finally approved by the government. scheme approved by .....

Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla Vs. National Law School of India University, Be ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... which is to the following effect:- provided further that except with the prior concurrence of the academic council, the executive council shall not make, amend or repeal any regulation affecting any or all of the following matters, namely:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (g) mode of enrolment or admission of students; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 48. shri ..... consortium. we have noticed above that the respondent no.1 was the first national law university which came into existence by act, 1986 of karnataka legislature. other states followed the suit creating national law universities. different national law universities established in different parts of the country have contributed immensely ..... - chancellors of national law universities, the decision was taken to constitute a consortium of national law universities. the consortium got registered as society in karnataka societies registration act, 1960 on 26.03.2019. the consortium in its various meetings took decisions to streamline conduct of common law admission test ( .....

Union Of India Vs. Rajendra N Shah

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... and set-up of cooperative societies. in fact, a period of one year has been provided in the constitution from the commencement of the amendment for the required amendment or repeal by the competent legislature or by the competent authority, of laws which are inconsistent with part ix-b. as a corollary, the constitution enables ..... xxx xxx xxx 28. it may be seen that article 368(1) refers to parliament, which may exercise its constituent power to amend the constitution by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision of the constitution. this however has to be in accordance with the mandatory procedure laid down in the article. 4029 ..... in accordance with the provision of the proviso to clause (2) of article 368 of the constitution. legislatures of the following states have passed resolutions ratifying the amendments: (1) haryana (2) himachal pradesh (3) karnataka (4) madhya pradesh (5) maharashtra (6) manipur (7) meghalaya (8) orissa (9) punjab (10) rajasthan (11) sikkim (12) tamil .....

Chandra Prakash Tiwari and ors. Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2002SC2322; 2002(4)AWC2657(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC159; 2002LabIC2168; 2002(4)SCALE528; (2002)6SCC127; [2002]3SCR948; 2002(2)SCT1093(SC); 2002(3)SLJ88(SC)

..... constitution, all the law in force in the territory of india immediately before the commencement of this constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority....'10. at this stage, it would be convenient also to note transitional provisions as engrafted in article 313 ..... any such act.'14. it is in this context as well the decision of this court in a.b. krishna (a.b. krishna and ors. v. state of karnataka and ors. - : [1998]1scr157 ), wherein this court upon reference to maxwell's interpretation of statutes (11th edn. p. 168) as also oft cited decision ..... rule pertaining to the subject matter presently under consideration with recent guide-lines as noted above, its applicability cannot be doubted. unless the general rule specifically repeal the effectiveness of the special rules, question of the matter rule becoming ineffective or inoperative would not arise. in order to be effective, an express mention .....

Dropti Devi and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of foreign exchange regulation and smuggling activities which have increasingly deleterious serious effect on the security of the state. section 3 of cofeposa has not been amended or repealed by parliament. section 3(1) of cofeposa that authorises detention with a view to prevent activities prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange is ..... found necessary".46. in the case of venkateshan s.1 , a two-judge bench of this court was concerned with the judgment and order of the karnataka high court whereby it quashed and set aside the detention order passed by the joint secretary, ministry of finance, department of revenue, government of india under ..... increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby serious effect on the security of the state.section 3 of the cofeposa act, which is not amended or repealed, empowers the authority to exercise its power of detention with a view to preventing any person inter alia from acting in any manner prejudicial to .....

M/s Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. Vs. Chattisgarh State Elect. Reg. Comm ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the second order, it was made sufficiently clear that jspl will have to get the permission/licence from the commission since section 28 of the 1910 act stood repealed and no permission thereof could be given. iv. that there cannot be an estoppel against the statute. the relevant authority at that time was the commission and ..... rules. the learned senior counsel for the appellant stated that the same cannot be done in terms of various judgments passed by this court viz. p. mahendran v. state of karnataka (1990) 1 scc411 a.a. calton v. director of education (1983) 3 scc33and gopal 24 krushna rath v. m.a.a. baig (dead) by lrs (1999 ..... for grant of the second distribution license. the said distribution licence is neither co terminus with the existence of the revenue district nor would the distribution licence be amended, revoked or in any manner affected by delimitation or consolidation of revenue districts. any subsequent change to the area on account of consolidation of revenue district etc. .....

Noor Mohd. Khan Ghouse Khan Soudagar Vs. Fakirappa Bharmappa Machenaha ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1978SC1217; (1978)3SCC188; [1978]3SCR789

..... and shall communicate its decision to the civil court and such court shall thereupon dispose of the suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto.section 142 of the karnataka act provides for repeal and savings of certain earliar acts. sub-section (1a) was inserted by act 14 of 1965 in section 142. it reads as follows :notwithstanding anything contained in sub ..... seen that if respondent no. 1 in these appeals was a deemed tenant under the bombay act, he had the protection of the mysore act. the karnataka act has been amended several times, such as, by karnataka act 14 of 3 965; act 38 of 1966; act 6 of 1970 and act 1 of 1974. we are referring to the relevant provisions or ..... had failed to establish that they had become statutory owners of the land by virtue of the first proviso to section 88 read with section 32 and 32f as amended under the amending act no, 13 of 1956 (vide pages 795-796).10. it may be pointed out that neither by section 70 nor by section 85, as it stood at the .....

Sushila N. Rungta (D) Thr. Lrs Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer16(2) and O ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... a similar situation in the present case. in point of fact, on going through the impugned judgment, it is clear that every time an amendment was made to the defence of india rules and/or repeal of the said rules had taken place, there was always an inbuilt savings clause. in fact, section 116 of the gold (control) ordinance ..... to the extent, in sub-section 2 thereof, by saving show cause notices which, ordinarily, are not saved even if section 6 were to apply see m.s. shivananda vs. karnataka state road transport corporation and others, [1980]. 1 scr684following director of public works & anr. vs. ho po sang & ors., [1961]. 2 all. er72110) this being the case, ..... would remain unanswered. given the fact that the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter have now disappeared as a result of the repeal of the gold control act, we give liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete the questions in the wealth tax reference within a period of eight weeks from today. once this is done, .....