Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 158 (3.00 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. Etc on 11 October, 1977

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Karnataka State Transport Authority, ... on 10 March, 2005

In State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy ((1978) SC 215) this Court upheld the validity of the said Act holding, among other things, that the Act was for acquisition of property and was in the public interest and for a public purpose. The Act, according to the Court, had nationalized the contract transport service in the State and that was also for a public purpose as declared in the Act. It was also observed that if Articles 38 and 39 are to be given effect to, then the State has progressively to assume the predominant and direct responsibility for setting up new industrial undertakings which would also include development of transport facilities. The State has also to become agency for planned national development, and the socialistic pattern of society as the national objective required that public utility services should be in the public sector. The acquisition of road transport undertakings by the State, therefore, undoubtedly served the public purpose."
Karnataka High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Karnataka State Transport Authority ... on 16 December, 2004

In State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, AIR 1978 SC 215, this Court upheld the validity of the said Act holding, among other things, that the Act was for acquisition of property and was in the public interest and for a public purpose. The Act, according to the Court, had nationalized the contract transport service in the State and that was also for a public purpose as declared in the Act. It was also observed that if Articles 38 and 39 are to be given effect to, then the State has progressively to assume the predominant and direct responsibility for setting up new industrial undertakings which would also include development of transport facilities. The State has also to become agency for planned national development, and the socialistic pattern of society as the national objective required that public utility services should be in the public sector. The acquisition of road transport undertakings by the State, therefore, undoubtedly served the public purpose."
Karnataka High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Prakash Amichand Shah vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 20 December, 1985

S.C.R. 1 and to the decision in State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Ranganatha Redy & Anr., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 641 in support of his plea that the decision in Shantilal Mangaldas's case (supra) stood overruled. We have gone through these decisions carefully. Before embarking upon the examination of these decisions we should bear in mind that what is under consideration is no a statute of a legislation but a decision of the Court. A decision ordinarily is a decision on the case before the court while the principle underlying the decision would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently. Hence while applying the decision to a later case, the Court which is dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. We have earlier seen what Justice Shah has laid down in Shantilal Mangaldas's case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 101 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Anti Corruption Movement vs The Chief Secretary To Government Of ... on 10 March, 2015

It is this reason which has prevailed in opining when the question of adequacy or inadequacy of compensation in land acquisition would not affect the constitutional validity  State of Karnataka vs. Ranganatha Reddy (supra). Thus, in the present case, whether the land owners are to be paid the market value at times of re-conveyance or at least interest on such amount as a principle of equity would have no bearing on the constitutional validity of Section 48-B of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 10 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra vs Karnani Properties Limited on 20 September, 2024

The committee might have added that the rule of law and parliamentary democracy itself are imperilled if laws are incomprehensible. They did say that it is of fundamental importance in a free society that the law should be readily ascertainable and reasonably clear, and that otherwise it is oppressive and deprives the citizen of one of his basic rights. It is also needlessly expensive and wasteful. Reed Dicerson, the famous American draftsman, said it cost the Government and the public ‘many millions of dollars annually.” 27 Justice Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy, (1977) 4 SCC 471 further observes that “our draftsmen handle foreign know-how meant for different circumstances, and without full grasp of the economic regulation or the leisure and facilities for such study”. He went on to further state that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document

M/S S.R.S Travels By Its Proprietor K.T. ... vs The Karnataka State Road Transport ... on 6 February, 2025

13. The contention advanced by the Respondent Corporation (KSRTC) that repealing the KCCA Act is unconstitutional because it effectively overrules the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranganatha Reddy (Supra) and Vijayakumar Sharma (Supra) fails to recognize the dynamic nature of legislative policy. Those Supreme Court decisions merely affirmed the constitutional validity of the KCCA Act at the time of its enactment; they do not bind the Legislature from modifying or repealing a statute when subsequent developments warrant a change in policy. Moreover, the argument that the repeal should have required fresh presidential assent is misplaced. A repeal statute does not recreate the legal framework anew but rather extinguishes the earlier Act’s operative provisions; it is not subject to the same procedural requirements as an original enactment when it comes to the need for fresh assent, provided that the repeal falls within the legislative competence of the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another on 10 December, 1982

We may also look at it this way. When we say that the State of Himachal Pradesh possesses immense forest wealth or that the State of Bihar possesses immense mineral wealth, we do not mean that the Governments of the States of Himachal Pradesh and Bihar own the forest and mineral wealth; what we mean is that there is immense forest and mineral wealth in the territories of the two States, whether such wealth is owned by the people as a whole or by individuals. Again, when we talk of, say, a certain area in Delhi being a Bengali, Punjabi or South Indian area, we do not mean that the area is owned by Bengalis, Punjabis or South Indians but only that large numbers of Bengalis, Punjabis or South Indians live in that area. When Art. 39 (b) refers to material resources of the community it does not refer only to resources owned by the community as a whole but it refers also to resources owned by individual members of the community. Resources of the community do not mean 1024 public resources only but include private resources as well. Nor do we understand the word "distribute" to be used in Art. 39 (b) in the limited sense in which Shri Sen wants us to say it is used, that is, in the sense only of retail distribution to individuals. It is used in a wider sense so as to take in all manner and method of distribution such as distribution between regions, distribution between industries, distribution between classes and distribution between public, private and joint sectors. The distribution envisaged by Art. 39(b) necessarily takes within its stride the transformation of wealth from private-ownership into public ownership and is not confined to that which is already public-owned. The submissions of Shri Sen are well answered by the observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy which we quote below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 133 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next