Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)

M. Narayanappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner And ... on 9 November, 2005

b) Receipt of information by the person (authorities) from any source; or c) Suo motu information. A period of limitation is prescribed only with regard to the filing of Appeals against an order passed by Assistant Commissioner and not for filing applications seeking restoration or initiating proceedings suo motu. We affirm the finding to this effect of the Single Bench in M.Nagrayanappa vs. Special Deputy Commissioner 2006(3) KLJ 225.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - D V Kumar - Full Document

Harishchandra Hegde vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 18 December, 2003

7. Our attention has been drawn to Harishchandra Hegde vs. State of Karnataka 2004(9) SCC 780 in which the object and purpose of the PTCL Act came to be restated. The Apex Court held that the statute "was enacted with the object enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution including the directive principles of State policy viz., for improving the social and economic conditions of persons belonging to weaker sections of the Society and in particular, those belonging to SC and ST categories." Another important aspect of the law was emphasized namely that because of existence of a non- obstante clause the provisions of any covenant in any agreement or in any other law or statute would have no application and would stand overridden.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next