Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-15-2017
..... frame rules does not authorize the central government to adopt measures which might be recommended by an international convention. though an amendment was brought to cotpa vide 154 2007 amendment (amendment act 38 of 2007), the said amendment is not pursuant to any international treaty or convention not is it for implementation of fctc. the stand of the ..... but in 463 the process the fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated. he has drawn our attention to answers sought under the right to information act, 2005, so as to ascertain as to what was the basis or the material that weighed with the department of health and family welfare, to choose the specified ..... . state of mysore [air1964sc1823, the same view has been taken. the aforesaid judgments have been referred to in bannari amman sugars limited vs. commercial tax officer, [2005 (1) scc625, wherein 314 it has been held that what the court has to see is, whether the substance of the requirement of article 166 has been complied .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-08-2017
..... this belated stage is not an option for which this court should either relegate the parties or refuse to appoint arbitrator under section 11(6) of the act. moreover, the amendment in law removes the rigour of those precedents.17. as far as the name of the arbitrator suggested from the panel of the arbitrators including the ..... in law. 7. it may be noticed here that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were prior to the amendment of section 11 of the act effected by act no.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.8. on the other hand, mr.udaya holla, senior counsel appearing with mr.vivek ..... him is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note : this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the administrative act of appointing the arbitrator are final and non-appealabe].. 10. besides the aforesaid law commission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-08-2017
..... respondent-company is concerned that part of clause 45 clearly stands over-ridden by the statutory amendment of the act w.e.f. 23.10.2015. the amended act no.3 of 2016 was given retrospective effect to be operative from 23.10.2015 and this amendment act came to be dealt with by this court, after dealing the cited supreme court decisions rendered ..... invalid in law. 7. it may be noticed here that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were prior to the amendment of section 11 of the act effected by act no.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.8. on the other hand, mr.udaya holla, senior counsel appearing with mr.vivek holla, ..... been and after the words designated by delete the words him is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note : this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the date of order 08-12-2017 c. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-2017
..... such words a letters patent appeal would not be barred. the legislature was aware that it had incorporated the saving clause in section ..... in such appeal." it is thus to be seen that when the legislature wanted to exclude a letters patent appeal it specifically did so. the words used in section 22 100a are not by way of abundant caution. by the amendment acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of ..... . the hon ble supreme court, while considering the provisions of sections 104(2) & (1) and 4 and 100-a (prior to 1976, 2002 amendment) order 43 rule 1-letters patent, clause 15 (madras)- letters patent appeal - in the case of p.s.sathappan (dead) by legal representatives vs. andhra bank limited and others reported in air2004sc5152at para 29, 30 and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-26-2017
..... this belated stage is not an option for which this court should either relegate the parties or refuse to appoint arbitrator under section 11(6) of the act. moreover, the amendment in law removes the rigour of those precedents.17. as far as the name of the arbitrator suggested from the panel of the arbitrators including the ..... in law. 7. it may be noticed here that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were prior to the amendment of section 11 of the act effected by act no.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.8. on the other hand, mr.udaya holla, senior counsel appearing with mr.vivek ..... him is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note : this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the administrative act of appointing the arbitrator are final and non-appealabe].. 10. besides the aforesaid law commission .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-20-2017
..... vested interest of selection of candidates in whom he was interested. this subversion commenced from the stage of the amendment of the rules and continued till the stage of interview, where the selection committee without any prior intimation and ..... 3) the governing council shall also have the power to add, alter or amend the rules and regulations and bye-laws of the society consistent with the societies registration act and subject to approval of the government of karnataka. 31 he would contend ..... dt.6.6.2005. out of the 08 vacancies notified, 03 were earmarked for gm, 01 for 371(j). 01 for ii ..... act and in view of the above provision, the age limit of the third respondent could be relaxed upto 10 years.9. that the vacancies have been clubbed together and classified according to the policy of reservation as prescribed for direct recruitment in go no.dpar:8:sbc:1995 20.6.1995 read with go no.dpar:18:sbc:2005 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-14-2017
..... of the karnataka high court in khoday distilleries ltd. case to exclude the applicability of sections 6 and 11-a as amended and - 52 - inserted by the central amendment act of 1984 to proceedings under the bda act. the submissions to the contra on behalf of the appellant has no merit whatsoever and do not commend for our ..... which alone the proceedings initiated thereunder shall lapse due to any default, the different circumstances and period of limitation envisaged under the central act, 1894, as amended by the amending act of 1984 for completing the proceedings on pain of letting them lapse forever, cannot be imported into consideration for purposes of bda ..... members of the family of ramaiah. thereafter, possession was taken and the same was notified as per sub-section (2) of section 16 of the la act, 1894 (karnataka amendment), which is evidence of possession being taken. subsequently, bda has allotted the said extent of land to third parties.-. 106 - according to learned counsel for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-13-2017
..... the relationship by our traditions and customs. he would also draw the attention of the court to the provisions of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, with particular reference to the rights vested in the wife and as a pointer in this regard, he would refer to the provisions of section 2(s) ..... order dated 20.08.2017 vide annexure-j to the writ petitions. secondly, the petitioners have also sought for striking down section 17(2) of the act, 1966 as amended vide karnataka act no.38/2013, as being unconstitutional. (viii). an interim prayer was also sought for staying the operation and execution of the impugned order. as the ..... dated:23. 8.2017 passed by the r-2 vide annexure-n. strike down section 17 (2) of the karnataka agriculture produce marketing (regulation and development) act, 1966, amended by karnataka act no.38 of 2013, as unconstitutional. these writ petitions having been listed for dictating order and having been reserved on 21.09.2017 for orders; this day .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-23-2017
..... order reversing the said advance ruling and issuing the so called clarification which is not correct in law. he has also urged that such power given under amended provisions of section 60(8) of the act are also date of order :23. 10.2017 wp no.49577/2014 m/s bella premier happy hygiene care private limited vs, state of karnataka & another ..... provisions of section 60(8). the rate of tax applicable in respect f all other dealers is as under for different periods: sl.no.period tax rate 1. 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010 12.5% 2. 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 13.5% 3. 01.04.2011 to 31.07.2012 14% 4. 01.08.2012 and ..... bella premier happy hygiene care private limited vs, state of karnataka & another. . 5/26 residuary entry taxable from 12.5% to 14.5% for the periods commencing from 01.04.2005 till the date of passing of the order.4. the learned counsel for petitioner, mr.shivadass g., also submitted that the state government later on has issued a notification on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-13-2017
..... -r23, handing over an enquiry to the lokayuktha under the provisions of section 7(2-a) of the karnataka lokayuktha act, 1984, for which the petitioner has filed later on an application seeking amendment of the writ petition itself for laying a challenge to the said order dated 15.04.2017 handing over an enquiry to ..... pradesh & another vs. arezzo developers private limited and others (2016) 12 scc530 the court reiterated that the court has to see whether the show-cause notice is patently illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary or mala fide in nature. in the present case, when the landed properties were exchanged amongst the bhumidhars without any consideration, can it ..... , dept. of industries & commerce 2. kiadb3 the special deputy commissioner, kiadb appeal before division bench against order passed in (sl. no.6) w.p.no 10744/2005, that the petitioner has no title over the land and that the authorities, i.e kiadb, were justified in rejecting the petitioner s request. hon ble mr. justice p .....
Tag this Judgment!