Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (2.30 seconds)
Documents citing Koluthara Exports Ltd vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 2 February, 2002

M/S Raheel Communication vs The Commissioner on 30 November, 2022

19. It is appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Koluthara Exports Limited Vs State of Kerala and others reported in (2002)2 SCC 459 wherein the Apex Court dealing with Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) upholding the Constitutional Validity of Section 4(2) read with Section 2(d) of Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Act, 1985(Act 30 of 1985) (As amended by Act 15 of 1987). At paragraph 18 has held as under ;
Karnataka High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Junglee Games India Private Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 2021

45. The second lot of petitioners refer to rummy as a game of skill and the judicial pronouncements in such regard before proceeding to cite another Constitution Bench judgment reported at (2002) 2 SCC 459 (Koluthara Exports Ltd v. State of Kerala) for the proposition that however well-intentioned a legislation may be and whatever social purpose it may profess to serve, the enactment could be invalidated if the State had no authority in such regard.
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Bezawada Supriya, vs The Govt on 3 March, 2022

441) Admittedly, Article 38 is in Part-4 of the Constitution of India. It does provide a laudable direction to the State to secure a just social order by eliminating inequalities in alternative in different areas. The question, however, is can this Article be used to justify the actions of the State in enacting a law after Parliament expressed its opinion. Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Koluthara Exports Ltd., v State of Kerala and others164 held as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 254 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

S. Latha Kunjamma vs K. Anil Kumar on 24 March, 2008

He also cited the decision in Yamanaji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala , Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala AIR 2002 Supreme Court 973, and Suchitra v. Anil Krishnan 2007 (2) KHC 680. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the dismissal of application for amendment to insert the ground of cruelty on the basis of the alleged false imputation made against the appellant in the counter of the respondent precluded the appellant from raising the ground of cruelty. We reminded the counsel that this Court can take subsequent events into account to shorten the litigation between the parties and for doing complete justice to them. Character assassination in and during the course of proceedings amounts to cruelty.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Harun-Ul-Rashid - Full Document

Charangat Coir Manufacturing Co. (P) ... vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2003

Section 3 as amended also shows that only workers or self employed persons employed in the various process of the coir industry can become the members of the Fund. In other words, employees employed for exporting or selling of coir products are not entitled to become members of the Fund. So, workers employed by dealers or exporters will not get any benefit from the Fund as process in coir industry as defined in Section 2(p) includes only manufacturing activity upto processing and not selling. Therefore, on the basis of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Koluthara Exports Ltd. (supra) we declare that Section 4(2) of the Amended Act in so far as it imposes liability to pay contribution on the dealer and exporter on the basis of turnover is unconstitutional and out side the ambit of Entry 23 of List III of the Constitution and therefore lacking legislative competence.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Coal Mines Officers' Association Of ... vs State And Ors. on 24 August, 2006

In the case of Kolutham Exports Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 4(2) of Kerala Fishermens' Welfare Fund Act, 1985, as amended by Act 15 of 1987 levying impost by way of contribution from purchaser/exporter of fishes invalid as it lacks legislative competence. However, taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the amount credited to the welfare fund by the dealers had already been spent by the Board for welfare of fishermen, the Supreme Court did not allow refund in favour of dealers/contributors.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Smt. Renu Bali vs Delhi Development Authority on 30 October, 2003

28. We may at this juncture notice that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Koluthara Exports Lt. v. State of Kerala has observed that even if a State in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 23 List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India can make a welfare legislation, yet the burden of impost cannot be placed upon a person who is neither a member of the society nor the employer of a person who is a member of such society. It was held that: (SCC p. 466, Para 18) "There can be no doubt that Entry 23 enables the State Legislature of enact a law in respect of social security and social insurance or dealing with employment and unemployment. The provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act (quoted above) postulate social security and welfare measures of the fishermen. The State can, therefore, justify its competence under this entry. But, in our view, the State cannot, in an Act under Entry 23 of List III, place the burden of an impost by way of contribution for giving effect to the Act and the Scheme made there under for the social security and social welfare of a section of society upon a person who is not a member of such section of society nor an employer of a person who is a member of such section of society. The burden of the impost may be placed only when there exists the relationship of employer and employee between the contributor and the beneficiary of the provisions of the Act and the scheme made there under."
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 11 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Rajashree Cement And Ors. vs The Dy. Director (I) And Ors. on 17 April, 2004

In the present cases also, the amount contributed by the Management has since been transferred to the fund and even made use of for the benefit of the employees covered- by the scheme. No application in the manner prescribed having been filed within the time permissible under Regulation 40 for refund, the prayer for refund was rightly declined by the Courts below. In the result, M.F.As.No. 2251, 2657, 2655, 132, 3594, 2240/2001 filed by the ESI Corporation are dismissed as withdrawn. M.F.As.No. 2031 & 3165/01 are also dismissed. M.F.A.No. 1879/ 1999 shall however stand allowed, the order passed by the ESI Court shall stand set aside and the demand for payment of Rs. 4,50,983/ - towards contribution raised against the appellant in that case set aside. No costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Hindustan Times & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 November, 2002

We may at this juncture notice that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors.{2002(2) SCC 459} has observed that even if a State in exercise of its legislative power under Entry 23, List III of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India can make a welfare legislation, yet the burden of impost cannot be placed upon a person who is neither the member of society nor the employer of a person who is member of such society. It was held that :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 58 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next