Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. R. M. D. C. (Mysore) Private Ltd vs The State Of Mysore on 8 August, 1961

T. Khande Rao And Sons And Etc. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 14 September, 1978

In R.M.D.C.'s case, the question that arose before this Court and Supreme Court was, whether the Karnataka State Legislature (which was then called as Mysore State Legislature) having authorised the Parliament to legislate on the subject of "Betting and gambling" covered by Entry No. 34 of List II-State List-Seventh Sch. of the Constitution, can be said to have authorised the Parliament to legislate on the subject of "Taxes on betting and gambling' covered by Entry No. 62 of the same list. In this context, the Supreme Court had to consider the true scope and ambit of Art. 252 of the Constitution and the earlier law made by the Karnataka State Legislature on the subject of 'betting and gambling' and the later law made by the Parliament on the same subject. On a consideration of these questions, the Supreme Court ruled that what had been authorised by the Karnataka Legislature was only on the subject of 'Betting and gambling' covered by Entry No. 34 and not on the subject of 'Taxes on betting and gambling' covered by Entry No. 62 and in that view the Supreme Court rules that the provisions in the State Law in so far as they related to levy of tax did not become inoperative and void. But the observations made by the Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Art. 252 and the earlier legislation made by the Karnataka Legislature on the subject of 'Betting and gambling' which had been surrendered to the Parliament are apposite for our purpose. At p. 597 the Supreme Court observes:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishan Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 9 September, 2022

In M/s R.M.D.C. Mysore vs. State of Mysore3 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was noted that the subject of betting and gambling given in entry 34 of List II and the taxes on betting and gambling as given in entry 62 of List II were to be read as separate powers and, therefore, when control and regulation of prize competitions was surrendered to Parliament by resolutions of the State Legislature, the power to tax under entry 62 of List II, which is a separate head, cannot be said to have been surrendered. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the State Legislature had passed any resolution for the surrender of its Constitutional power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, to regulate the 3 1962 AIR (SC) 594 Page 72 of 78 72 of 78 ::: Downloaded on - 11-09-2022 00:24:47 ::: CWP No.15067 of 2020 (O&M) & Connected cases recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. It cannot, therefore, be said that the State has abdicated or lost its Constitutional power of legislation in this behalf or that such power is exclusively vested in the Central Government. The judgment ibid does not, therefore, help the petitioners.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Nechupadam Construction Engineering ... vs The Executive Engineer And Anr. on 14 July, 1966

Ltd. v. The State of Mysore [1963] 14 S.T.C. 175, the Supreme Court had to consider this question. The first appellant before the Supreme Court was the sales manager of the second appellant there, who was manufacturing cement and was having factories in different parts of India outside the State of Mysore. The first appellant with its head office in Bombay and a branch office in Bangalore was a registered dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. Persons desirous of buying cement had to get an authorisation in a standard form which authorised the first appellant to sell and supply cement in quantities and from the factory mentioned therein. The buyer then placed an order with the first appellant who accepted the order and instructed its Bombay office to despatch the cement in accordance with the instructions of the buyer and the authorisation. A copy of the letter of instruction was sent to the factory from where the goods were to be despatched and the particulars of the authorisation were mentioned therein. Thereafter the first appellant sent an advice to the buyer enclosing therewith the railway receipt for the goods and the particulars of the authorisation. Both the contract of sale and the advice stated that the goods were being despatched at the buyer's risk from the time delivery was made from the factory to the carriers and the railway receipt was obtained for the goods. In respect of the period of assessment from 6th September, 1955 to 31st March, 1956, both the Sales Tax Authorities and the High Court held that as the actual delivery of the goods' to the buyers was made within the State of Mysore the sales were intra-State sales and liable to be taxed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948. It was held by the Supreme Court that the sales were inter-State sales and exempt from sales tax because under the contract of sale there was transport of goods from outside the State of Mysore into the State of Mysore and the transactions themselves involved movement of goods across the border.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Sohan Lal Singh Son Of Shri Mishri Lal ... vs Basic Education Board, Through Its ... on 19 January, 2004

In respect of examining the effect on those, who are employed by virtue of irregular appointments by the authorities the Supreme Court in AIR 1965 SC 1293 (C. Chaimabasnvaiah v. State of Mysore) observed that a selection was made by the Mysore Public Service Commission for appointment to Class 1 and II posts in the Slate Administrative Service. 98 persons were declared successful and given appointment. Subsequently the State Government sent a list of 24 candidates for consideration of the Commission who approved it These 24 persons were also appointed. 16 candidates who had not been selected filed a writ petition in the Mysore High Court, As a compromise, the Mate Government undertook to appoint them also. Three of them had not been called for interview at all. Thereafter some other candidates who had not been selected approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the appointments made at the instance of the Government and the 16 writ petitioners. While setting aside the selection and appointments the Court observed: " It is very unfortunate that these persons should be uprooted after they had been appointed but if equality and equal protection before the law have any meaning and if our public institutions are to inspire that confidence which is expected of them we would be failing in our duty if we did not, even at the cost of considerable inconvenience to Government and the selected candidates do the right thing."(page 1296)
Allahabad High Court Cites 120 - Cited by 2 - R B Misra - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 17 November, 1978

However, the decision of the Supreme Court in R.M. D.C. (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 594 shows that the States passing the resolutions under Article 252(1) before enactment of the Act, or adopting the Act after its enactment, surrender the power on the matters referred to in the resolutions in favour of Parliament. Be that as it may, it is clear to us that an Act passed by Parliament under Article 252(1) in pursuance of resolutions passed by two or more States and adopted later by other States cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be classified as a State Act. Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Official Languages Act has absolutely no relevance on the question of the applicability of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in Madhya Pradesh.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - J S Verma - Full Document

Pushpak Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 1994

16. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that in some of the petitions, the Collector has issued a direction to the Police for investigation and launching the prosecution whereas under Section 39 it is only Commissioner of Division who has been authorised to give a direction to the Police Officer to investigate and launch the prosecution. Section 39 of the Act, 1982, as referred above, confers this power on the Commissioner of the Division to give a direction to the Police for investigation and launching the prosecution and not to the Collector. Therefore, wherever Collector has given a direction to the Police for registering the case for investigating and launching the prosecution then such act by the Collector shall be deemed to be illegal and unauthorised. We have no hesitation in saying that such prosecution wherever it has been launched will be illegal. Some of the petitions before us, the only argument has been raised that the Collector has directed the Police to investigate and launch the prosecution, such action is bad and it is declared so and is set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next