Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

        -

        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>Court upholds State Govt's 30-year sugar factory lease decision for public interest & cooperative society revival</h1> <h3>Sri Ramu Solanke And Ors. Versus State Of Karnataka By Its</h3> Sri Ramu Solanke And Ors. Versus State Of Karnataka By Its - ILR 2008 KAR 606 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification inviting tenders for leasing the sugar factory.2. Legality of the State Government's decision to lease the sugar factory.3. Jurisdiction of the State Government in issuing the impugned order.4. Impact of the decision on the members of the cooperative society and public interest.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notification Inviting Tenders:The petitioners challenged the notification dated 19.7.2007 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, inviting tenders for leasing the Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha sugar factory on a Lease, Rehabilitate, Operate, and Transfer (LROT) basis for 30 years. The petitioners, who are shareholders and members of the society, argued that the decision to lease the factory was taken unilaterally by the State Government without consulting the general body of the society, which is against the cooperative principles and the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.2. Legality of the State Government's Decision:The petitioners contended that the State Government's decision to lease the sugar factory was arbitrary and not in the interest of the members of the society. They argued that the decision was taken without any recommendation from the general body or the board of the society. The respondents, however, justified the decision, stating that the factory had sustained heavy losses and was unable to pay its dues to farmers, workers, financial institutions, and the State Government. The factory was closed since 2001-02 due to financial distress, and the decision to lease was seen as the only viable option to revive the factory and safeguard the interests of all stakeholders.3. Jurisdiction of the State Government in Issuing the Impugned Order:The petitioners argued that the order at Annexure 'H' was issued without jurisdiction, as Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act does not empower the State Government to issue such an order. The respondents countered this by stating that Section 30B empowers the State Government to issue directions in public interest and for the proper implementation of cooperative and other development programs. They argued that the decision to lease the factory was in public interest and aimed at reviving the cooperative society, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the State Government.4. Impact of the Decision on the Members of the Cooperative Society and Public Interest:The respondents highlighted that the factory's closure had adversely affected over 50,000 to 60,000 people dependent on it for their livelihood. The total liabilities of the factory were in excess of Rs. 15057 lakhs, with accumulated losses aggregating to over Rs. 9892 lakhs. The decision to lease the factory was seen as a means to revive it, keep the society intact, and benefit the members, farmers, employees, financial institutions, and the State Government. The lessee was required to invest a minimum of Rs. 100 crores in the factory, increase the crushing capacity, and establish co-generation and ethanol units. After the lease period, the entire assets would revert to the society, adding value to its assets.Conclusion:The court concluded that the decision to lease the factory was taken in public interest and was aimed at reviving the cooperative society. The State Government's decision was found to be just and proper, given the financial distress faced by the factory and its inability to pay its dues. The court held that the impugned order was within the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 30B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and dismissed the writ petition.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found