Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 72 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Rajendra N Shah on 20 July, 2021

D.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 13 September, 2023

21. Though Article 243-ZJ of Constitution of India was relied on in the above mentioned case law to come to the conclusion that term of office of elected members of the board is five years from the date of election, in view of the subsequent judgment by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rajendra N.Shah and another reported in 2021 SCC online SC 474 referred above, the respondents are not entitled to rely on Article 243 -ZJ of Constitution of India, which was declared inoperative in so far as State Co-operative Societies are concerned. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in this regard reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 13 September, 2023

21. Though Article 243-ZJ of Constitution of India was relied on in the above mentioned case law to come to the conclusion that term of office of elected members of the board is five years from the date of election, in view of the subsequent judgment by the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Rajendra N.Shah and another reported in 2021 SCC online SC 474 referred above, the respondents are not entitled to rely on Article 243 -ZJ of Constitution of India, which was declared inoperative in so far as 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Writ Petition Nos. 22770, 24199 and 24384 of 2023 State Co-operative Societies are concerned. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in this regard reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Manimaran vs The Joint Registrar/Managing Director on 29 April, 2022

15. We place on record our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff, Amicus Curiae, who appeared at our instance and ably assisted us in deciding the matter where there was some kind of a cloud caused because of the conflicting views expressed by the Three Division Benches which had come into existence between the 97th amendment and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra N.Shah's case (supra).
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Parimal H Solanki vs Bhoumik Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 6 October, 2022

45. Mr. Madon has submitted on the model Bye-Laws 31/47 1-IAL-25993-22.doc of 2014 for housing societies were introduced by the Maharashtra Government in view of the 97th Amendment to the Constitution in which the Object Clause 5(f) read with Chapter XX dealt with issues relating to redevelopment of the Society. There has thereafter been a striking down of the 97th Amendment to the Constitution by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr.9. Thus, it is not open now to place a reliance on these Bye-Laws.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

M/S. Ltimindtree Limited (Successor In ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 11 May, 2023

• Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) • Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. UOI [2006] 282 ITR 273 (SC) • CIT v Excel Industries Ltd [2013] 358 ITR 295 (SC) • Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99 (SC) • UOI v. Kaumudini N. Dalal [2001] 249 ITR 219 (SC) • UOI v. SatishPannalal Shah [2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC) • CIT v. NarendraDoshi [2002] 254 ITR 606 (SC) • CIT v. Shivsagar Estate [2007] 257 ITR 59 (SC) • RadhaswamySatsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) • CIT vsSridev Enterprises [1991] 192 ITR 165 (Karnataka) 20 ITA No.27/Bang/2023. LTIMindtree Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Keska Rajabhitha Primary Agricultural ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 August, 2023

72. Shri Venugopal then argued that 17 out of 28 States had enacted legislations incorporating provisions of Part IXB, and that, therefore, they had impliedly accepted the restrictions laid down in the said Part. This argument need not detain us inasmuch as the procedure laid down in Article 368(2) proviso requires ratification of legislatures of one half of the States by resolutions to that effect. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. Also, the argument that no State has come forward to challenge the 97th Constitution Amendment does not take the matter any further. When a citizen of India challenges a constitutional amendment as being procedurally infirm, it is the duty of the court to examine such challenge on merits as the Constitution of India is a national charter of governance affecting persons, citizens and institutions alike.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Sri. B Ganganna vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2024

23. The 97th Constitution Amendment which amended Article 19(1)(c) and brought 'co-operative society' within the ambit of Article 19(1)(c) is struck down by the Apex Court in so far as it applies to the co-operative societies other than multi-state co-operative societies in The Union of India vs Rajendra N Shah4. Even if the right to form an association which is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c), is applied to co-operative societies, such a fundamental right to form a co-operative society does not elevate the 'right to vote' in a co-operative society to the status of a fundamental right.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next