Divisional Manager, Apsrtc, ... vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, ... on 16 October, 2001
In D.P. SHARMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, , the apex court held:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.00 seconds)Documents citing
S. Vasudeva And D.P. Sharma And C. Kannan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 1989
Anne Ramachandra Rao vs Government Of A.P. And Others on 22 June, 2000
10. The provisions of Section 20(l)(b)
of the Act fell for consideration by the Supreme Court in S. Vasudeva/D.P. Sharma v. State of Karnataka, 1994 AIR SCW 344 - (1993) 3 SCC 467 and it is held that the provisions of Section 20(1)(b) of the Act will not permit the State Government to grant exemption to vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit for the purpose of enabling such exempted owner from transferring the same.
T.R.Thandur vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 April, 1996
The petitioner booked a small flat with an area of 950
sq.ft. in a multi-storeyed building containing several flats
on the excess vacant land belonging to respondent No.3,
exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling &
Regulation) Act, 1976 to be constructed by respondent no.4
in survey No.44, Marenahalli Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South taluk. Under the agreement, the petitioner was to
purchase the flat together with 1/48 share in the land on
which the building was to be constructed. Under the
Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 the
promoter, namely, respondent no.4, is required to convey
title and execute documents for the share in land of the
flat/apartment. The petitioner took necessary steps for
purchase of the flat together with his share of the land on
which the multi-storeyed building is constructed. However,
the respondent no.4 regretted its inability vide later dated
20.6.1993 to either execute the conveyance for transfer of
the petitioner's share of land or to handover possession of
the said flat to him be-cause of the order dated 16.6.1993
of the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner was informed
that the Karnataka High Court, by the said order, had
restrained the State Government from issuing any orders
permitting transfer of the excess vacant land and therefore,
the respondents were not in a position to comply with the
petitioner's demand. The order of the Karnataka High Court
is based on the decision of this Court in
S.Vasudeva/D.P.Sharma Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1993
(3) scc 467, which prohibits transfer of any part of the
exceess vacant land in respect of which exemption is granted
under Section 20(1)(b) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act, 1976. The decision in S.Vasudeva being the basis of the
impugned action, this writ petition has been filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this action; and
for that reason, correctness of the decision in S.Vasudeva
arises for consideration. No other facts are material for
deciding the question raised in this writ petition.
Narinderjit Singh Sahni And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 October, 2001
Incidentally, the records depict that in a proceeding under Sections 120-B,
420,409, 467,468 and 471 IPC, the petitioner herein moved an application
for bail before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Bail
Application No. 1928/1997 : P.C. Sharma v. State). The learned Sessions
Judge in his order dated 28th July, 1997 came to a definite conclusion that
a clear case of Sections 420, 468 and 471 has been made out so also the
case also under Section 409 IPC. The learned Sessions judge further
observed that "the conduct of the company shows that the accused be not
released on bail. He has not only influenced the I.O. when he was not in
jail but has compelled the complainant also for giving false affidavit.
Thus no case for bail is made out. The bail application, is, therefore,
rejected."
The State Of Karnataka, vs Sri.Ramesh Vasant Bangi @ Bhadri, on 19 June, 2017
In the facts and circumstances of the case,
if the applicant is serving under the Respondents
4
for more than ten years, he is eligible for
regularization under the Government Order dated
06.08.1990 and also the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECREARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMA DEVI (AIR 2006
SC 1806) and STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS v. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS {(2010) 9
SCC 247}, also the Judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal
in the cse of P.Vasudev v. State of Karnataka and
others decided on 26.05.2009. The applicant has
not produced the documents to establish his
service under he Respondent is continued without
break. This fact has to be verified by the
Respondents from the records.
1