Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: state of arunachal pradesh act 1986 section 47 power to construe laws Court: karnataka Page 1 of about 33 results (0.066 seconds)

State of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented by Its Section Officer Cum Aut ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2007KAR2497; 2007(5)KarLJ157

..... 6680/2007 has been filed by the state of arunachal pradesh, m/s lotus agency and one mr. ..... gunashekar who is the distributor of tickets of lottery organised by the state of arunachal pradesh as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the government of arunachal pradesh.8. ..... it is thus clear from the above pronouncement of law the highest court of land that section 5 of the 1998 act has been held to be valid and the court has also ruled that section 5 of the 1998 act does not suffer from excessive delegation of essential legislative powers by the parliament to the states without any policy and guidelines and the court also held that guidelines are given in the act itself and the said guidelines cannot be construed as unbridled or unguided.39. ..... ' and secondly, the court also found that there was interference with the fundamental rights of the appellants guaranteed under articles 14 and 19 of the constitution and the power having been vested only in the central government under section 23(1a)(f) and not with the state (food) health authority and last but not the least, the product pan masala and sale of tobacoo being not an activity falling under res extra commercium ..... 1125(11) air 1976 sc 1992(12) air 1986 sc 1455(13) air 1964 sc 1359(14) air 1987 sc 2323(15) air 1983 sc 1272(16) [1985] 1 scc 523(17) [1995] 1 scc 85(18) [1995] 1 scc 374(19) [1985] 1 scc 26028. .....

State of Arunachal Pradesh Rep. by Its Section Officer and ors. Vs. Un ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2008Kant123; ILR2008KAR2095; 2008(4)KarLJ501; 2008(3)KCCR1298; 2008(3)AIRKarR186; AIR2008Kar123; 2008AIHC2435(Kar)(DB)

..... be considered as trade and commerce within the meaning of articles 301 to 304 of the constitution of india.the supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of section 5 of the lotteries act, however laid down that the state while exercising the powers under section 5, cannot impose ban on the lotteries conducted by other states unless it imposes ban of its own lotteries and all types of lotteries and there should not be any selective ban, otherwise it offends the rule ..... of the appellants is the state of arunachal pradesh. ..... of sub-article 2 makes it very clear that the parliament may by law confer power on the state on the matters on which state has no power to act or legislate. ..... case to contend that the exercise of power under section 5 of the lotteries act is perfectly in accordance with law and the constitution. ..... the views of the american courts, australian courts, english common law, religious texts have been extensively referred to by their lordships in coming to the conclusion that the lottery is game of chance and it is one of the forms of gambling which is an immoral act with perilous consequences on the welfare and lives of common people in ..... (2) - a law made by parliament which applies in any state may, notwithstanding that it relates to a matter with respect to which the legislature of the states has no power to make laws, confer powers and impose duties, or authorise the conferring of powers and the imposition of duties, upon the state or officers and authorities .....

T Younis S/o Hajit Amirsab Vs. National Highway Authority Of India

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... it is in that background that the hon ble apex court considered the matter and came to a conclusion that the letter which had been sent by the state of arunachal pradesh to the arbitrator was not under section 33 of the act of 1996, because under section 33 the party can seek certain correction in computation of errors, clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of similar nature occurring in the award with notice to the other party ..... when execution proceedings were filed on 21.06.2004 by the decree holder, the party suffering from the award, the state of arunachal pradesh filed a petition on 06.08.2004 under section 34 of the act seeking for setting aside the award, claiming for condonation of delay and delay to be calculated - 13 - nc: ..... -d:1544 wp no.105176 of 2023 which was falling under section 33(1) and as such came to a conclusion that neither a review was maintainable nor the prayer which had been made in the application had anything to do with it and came to a conclusion that the since the application under section 33 was not maintainable the benefit under subsection (3) section 34 could not be made available to the state of arunachal pradesh and dismissed the petition under section 34. 10.5. ..... since the tribunal had no power of review on merit, therefore, the application moved by the appellant was wholly ..... this short ground, in our opinion, the learned single judge of the delhi high court is correct in law. 6.3. ..... -d:1544 wp no.105176 of 2023 position in law. .....

Ambit Private Limited Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....

Mr. Rajesh C Jain Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....

Mr Prateek Jaswant Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... the state of arunachal pradesh and others passed in criminal appeal no.125/2020 decided on 31.01.2020 and brought to the notice of this court para nos.6, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8, wherein the apex court has observed that from the bare reading of the ..... sudha seetharam and another passed in crl.a.no.238/2019 decided on 15.02.2019 and brought to the notice of this court para nos.18, 22, 23 and 24, wherein the apex court held that the condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under section 415 of the penal code is that there was dishonest inducement by the accused. ..... if there is no such indication in a case where the magistrate proceeds under sections 190/204 crpc, the high court under section 482 crpc is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to 28 prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. ..... the steps taken by the magistrate under section 190(1)(a) crpc followed by section 204 crpc should reflect that the magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court ..... judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. .....

Srividya C G Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....

Supratim Sarkar Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....

Sri K Ravi Nedungadi Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....

Rishabh Mishra Vs. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office

Court : Karnataka

..... &anr vs special judicial magistrate & ors; (1998) 5 scc1284) sushil sethi vs the state of arunachal pradesh, (2020) 3 scc240b) the learned judge of the special court has erred by not complying with the procedure under section 202 of the cr.pc and failing to apply his judicial mind before the issuance of the process. ..... b) proceeding is hypothesis that the special court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences complained of, section 621(1) of act, 1956 which is in parimateria with section 439(2) of act, 2013 postulates that the special court can exercise such power of cognizance only with the complaint is filed by (i) registrar, (ii) shareholder, and (iii) a person authorized by the central government in - 23 - nc:2024. ..... 1 scc499, the apex court, at para-3, ruled that the company court's obligation is to be satisfied that the valuation was in accordance with the law and it was carried out by an independent body, and it is not required to interfere only because the figure arrived at by the valuer was not as better as it would have been if another method would have been adopted. ..... therefore, it cannot be construed that the learned judge of this special court can dispense with forming an opinion before the issuing process.53. .....