Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 221 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing B.R. Enterprises Etc, Etc vs State Of U.P. And Grs. Etc: Etc on 7 May, 1999

State Of Arunachal Pradesh, ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through Its ... on 8 May, 2007

22. As regards the notification issued being arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate is concerned, the submission made by the learned Advocate General is that the notification is only a ministerial act reflecting the policy decision of the State of Karnataka and the said decision also forming part of the budget presented for the year 2007-08, such policy decision of the State, more so, when it forms a part of the budget, is not subjected to judicial review and the notification as such, having been issued subsequent to the budget proposal being approved in both the houses of the legislature, it is not possible to take the view that the said action of the State is arbitrary or unreasonable or for that matter disproportionate.
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

Tashi Delek Gaming Solutions (P) Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 28 April, 2004

23. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. (supra) lotteries are a form of gambling. They are pernicious in nature. Gambling activities are in its very nature and essence extra commercium. They were considered to be a sinful and pernicious vice by the ancient seers and law givers of India. They have been deprecated even by the laws of England, Scotland, United State of America and Australia. Even when the lottery was State sponsored it was looked down upon as an evil. Right from the ancient time till now all expressed concern to eliminate this evil, even when it was legalised for raising revenue either by the King or in the modern times by the State. Even this legitimisation was for the sole purpose of raising revenue and the legitimisation was for a limited period, since the legitimisation received condemnation even for the said limited purpose. As further pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 70 of the above decision, what makes lottery pernicious is its gambling nature. Even in the State lotteries the element of chance remains with no skill. It remains within the boundaries of gambling. The stringent measures and the conditions imposed under the State lotteries are only to inculcate faith to the participant of such lottery, that it is being conducted fairly with no possibility of fraud, misappropriation or deceit and assure the hopeful recipients of high prizes that all is fair and safe. That assurance is from stage one to the last with full transparency. No doubt, holding of the State lotteries for public revenue has been authorised and legalised and once this having been done it is expected from the State to take such measures to see that people at large, faithfully and hopefully participate in larger number for the greater yield of its revenue with no fear in their mind. By virtue of Section 4(d) of the Act, it is further ensured that proceeds of the sale of such lottery tickets are credited to the public accounts of the State. This is to give clear message to the participants that the proceeds are not in the hands of individual group or association but is ensured to be credited in the State Accounts. But all these by itself would not take the State lottery outside the realm of gambling. It remains within the same realm. In this regard there is no difference between a lottery under Entry 34, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and a lottery organised by the State under Entry 40 of List I of the Seventh Sqhedule. When the character of the State organised lotteries and the other lotteries remains the same, the mere placing of the apparel of the State with authority of law, would not make any difference. It remains to be gambling.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K P Nair - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs State Of Nagaland And Ors. on 29 August, 2001

10. Defending the passing of interim order in question, Mr. Goswami, learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/ respondents in Misc. Case No. 785/2001 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 3510/2001 has straight way taken me through the relevant provisions of the Act particularly Sections 4, 5 and 6 and has questioned the power and jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in issuing the impugned circular dated 26.5.1999. it is contended that the Section 4 of the Act does not empower the State of Punjab to make any sort of scrutiny whatsoever before selling of lottery tickets by the other States in the State of Punjab. Any action to be taken as regards such scrutiny, etc., has been vested only on the Central Government in terms of Section 6 of the Act. Referring to a latest decision of Apex Court dealing with the act, in B.R. Enterprises v. State of V.P. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 700, learned senior counsel argues that the law has already been settled that it is only the State that decides as a public policy for public interest to make the State a lottery free zone, can prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in that States but if the said State runs the lottery of its own, the sale of lottery tickets of other States in that State cannot be prohibited and any question relating to prohibition of running lottery or selling of the lottery tickets in a State not having lottery free zone including non-compliance of the provisions of the Act particularly Section 4, can only be entertained by the Central Govt. in the instant case, by Circular dated 26.5.1999 the Government of Punjab which is running its own lottery, directed the other States which are willing to sell lottery tickets in the State of Punjab, to satisfy the director of Punjab State Lottery relating to compliance of Section 4 of the Act before selling any lottery tickets therein and the said action on the part of the respondent No.3, in the light of the provisions of the Act as well as B.R. Enterprise's case (supra), is brazenly illegal, without jurisdiction and not tenable under the law. Accordingly, in passing of the interim order the petitioners constitutional rights have been protected and as such the interim order is absolutely correct and justified which does not warrant any interference and hence, this Miscellaneous case is liable to be dismissed.
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A H Saikia - Full Document

Sri Mangal Murty Marketing vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 2 November, 2018

The petition assails the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned legislation. It is attempted to canvass before us by the learned senior counsel that lottery is the subject included in the union list and the power to legislate in respect of lotteries is exclusively rests with the Parliament. In exercise of its power, the Parliament has already enacted the Lottery Regulation Act, 1998 to regularize the conduct of lottery business in respect of the State Organized lotteries and with a view to offer security to the purchaser of lottery tickets. Our attention is invited to Section 5 of the said Act which empowers the State Government to prohibit sale of lotteries of other States within its territory and Section 6 which empowers the Union Government to take measures against any lottery which violates the provisions of Lottery Regulation Act. It is also pointed out that the vires of the said enactment has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). The petitioner does not dispute that State can prohibit sale of lottery tickets in that State where the State itself does not run any lottery and it does not allow sale of lottery tickets of any Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 02:07:54 ::: 7/45 wp-854-07.doc other State.
Bombay High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

The State Of Sikkim Rep By Its Director vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By on 1 October, 2002

10.4. Once the petitioners categorically submit that they are not in arrears of sales tax, there need not be any impediment on the Enforcement Agency of State of Tamil Nadu for exercising the powers conferred under Rule 20(7) of the Rules, impugned herein, because in my considered opinion, when there cannot be a prohibition, prohibiting the writ petitioners to sell their respective lottery tickets in the State of Tamil Nadu in view of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. B.R. ENTERPRISES LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. reported in 1999 (9) SCC 70 0 = AIR 1999 SC 1867, referred to above, equally there cannot be any illegality or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Enforcement Agency of State of Tamil Nadu to ensure that there is no evasion of sales tax to be paid by the petitioners or their agencies with respect to their respective lottery trade in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P D Premkumar - Full Document

Iqbal Chand Khurana vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 August, 2000

19. The learned Departmental Representative had made efforts to distinguish the case law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. At the very outset it was submitted that ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. (supra) is not applicable. The definition of the lottery was referred to by their Lordships at the beginning and it was observed that there were three ingredients in the sale of lottery tickets viz., (1) prize., (2) chance., and (3) consideration. Their Lordships further pointed out that lottery contains an element of chance and this may be gambling but not a trade or commerce, The Departmental Representative argued that assessee was having no chance to win the prize as he had not paid consideration for the purchase of the ticket. He himself being the organiser of the lottery, could not be said to have purchased tickets of lottery from himself. Question of chance was absolutely absent nor assessee was having any intention of winning any prize because he himself is the organiser of the lotteries.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next