Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>1974 Amendment Act to Land Reforms Upheld, Tribunals' Constitution Validated</h1> <h3>H.S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVACHAR & ORS Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS</h3> H.S. SRINIVASA RAGHAVACHAR & ORS Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS - 1987 AIR 1518, 1987 (2) SCR 1189, 1987 (2) SCC 692, 1987 (3) JT 26, 1987 (1) SCALE 885 Issues Involved:1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974.2. Constitution of a Tribunal with unspecified qualifications.3. Exclusion of legal practitioners from appearing before the Tribunals.Summary:1. Vires of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as Amended by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act I of 1974:The principal submission was that the 1974 amendment, which took away the right of a landlord to resume possession of the tenanted land where he bona fide required the land for personal cultivation and had no other principal source of income for his own maintenance, was ultra vires, notwithstanding its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, as it offended the basic structure of the Constitution. The court held that the amendment was a law aimed at agrarian reform, securing the Directive Principles contained in Arts. 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. The court found no provision of the Amending Act that offends the basic structure of the Constitution.2. Constitution of a Tribunal with Unspecified Qualifications:The argument was that the constitution of a Tribunal consisting of persons with unspecified qualifications in place of a court was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. The court acknowledged the criticisms of the functioning of such Tribunals but held that the mal-functioning of some Tribunals could not vitiate the provision relating to the constitution of the Tribunal and the entrustment of the decision of certain issues to the Tribunal. The court noted that Land Tribunals have functioned well in other states and that the Karnataka Legislature had since amended the Act to provide for an appeal and revision.3. Exclusion of Legal Practitioners from Appearing Before the Tribunals:The argument was that Section 48(8), which prohibited legal practitioners from appearing in proceedings before the Tribunals, was repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act. The court adopted the reasoning of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Jaswant Kaur v. State of Haryana and directed that Section 48(8) would not be enforced to prevent Advocates from appearing before the Tribunals functioning under the Act. The court did not find it necessary to reopen decisions already rendered by the Tribunals on the ground that legal practitioners were not allowed to appear in those cases.Conclusion:All the civil appeals were dismissed without costs. The court upheld the constitutionality of the 1974 Amendment Act, the constitution of the Tribunal, and allowed legal practitioners to appear before the Tribunals.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found