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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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>Employees of certain government companies disqualified from running for Municipal Corporation Councillor</h1> <h3>M. Kumar Versus Bharath Earth Movers Limited</h3> The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, ruling that employees of Bharat Earth Movers ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (KMC Act).2. Disqualification of employees of Government Companies/Public Sector Undertakings from contesting elections for Municipal Corporation Councillor under Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act:The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act, arguing that it was irrational, vague, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the section disqualified employees of Government Companies and Public Sector Undertakings from contesting elections to the Municipal Corporation, which was unjust.The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act. It reasoned that the Legislature is competent to enact laws providing for disqualification for elections under Article 243-V of the Constitution. The court also emphasized that the right to elect and be elected is a statutory right subject to limitations imposed by the statute. The provision aimed to prevent conflicts of interest and misuse of official positions, which justified the disqualification.2. Disqualification of Employees of Government Companies/Public Sector Undertakings:The petitioners argued that employees of Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) and Indian Telephone Industries Limited (ITI) should not be disqualified under Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act. They contended that these companies were not 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution and that the term 'other authority' in Section 26(1)(c) should not be interpreted in the same manner as in Article 12.The court, however, held that BEML and ITI are Government Companies subject to pervasive control of the Central Government, and thus, they are 'other authorities' under Article 12. Consequently, the employees of these companies are disqualified from contesting elections under Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act. The court reasoned that the term 'other authorities' in Section 26(1)(c) should be interpreted similarly to Article 12, considering the legislative intent and the purpose of preventing conflicts of interest and misuse of official positions.Judgment by R.V. Raveendran (Dissenting):R.V. Raveendran, J., while agreeing with the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c), dissented on the interpretation of 'other authority.' He argued that Government Companies like BEML and ITI should not fall under the expression 'other authority' in Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act. He emphasized that the expanded meaning of 'other authority' under Article 12, meant to extend the enforcement of fundamental rights, should not be applied to disqualification provisions in election laws. He highlighted that the context and purpose of the provisions differ, and the normal etymological meaning of 'authority' should be applied.Conclusion:The Full Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act and ruled that employees of BEML and ITI are disqualified from contesting elections to the Municipal Corporation under this provision. The majority opinion emphasized the legislative intent and the purpose of preventing conflicts of interest, while the dissenting opinion argued for a narrower interpretation of 'other authority' based on the context and purpose of the provision.Decision of the Full Bench:- The constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, is upheld.- By majority opinion, it is held that the petitioners, employees of Bharat Earth Movers Limited and Indian Telephone Industries Limited, are disqualified from contesting elections to the Municipal Corporation under Section 26(1)(c) of the KMC Act.- Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.- No order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found