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>Petition Dismissed - Locus Standi Issue</h1> <h3>Big Star G Services LLP Versus The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 2 Ors., The Deputy Secretary Department Of State Lotteries Itanagar, M/s. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Big Star G Services LLP Versus The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 2 Ors., The Deputy Secretary Department Of State Lotteries Itanagar, M/s. Summit Online ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition.2. Petitioner's locus standi.3. Conversion of online lottery distributorship to paper lottery.4. Alleged violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.5. Specific performance of the contract.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The petitioner did not participate in the tender process initiated by the respondent No. 1 for the selection of distributors for conventional paper and online lotteries. The respondent No. 3 and other bidders participated, and agreements were executed between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner cannot challenge the impugned decision dated 12.09.2018 permitting the conversion of the distributorship from online lottery to paper lottery of the respondent No. 3.2. Petitioner's Locus Standi:The petitioner is a stranger to the agreement between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner did not participate in the tender process and, therefore, cannot raise grievances alleging discrimination or arbitrariness in the selection process citing violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot ask for specific performance of a specific term in the agreement as he is not a signatory to it.3. Conversion of Online Lottery Distributorship to Paper Lottery:The conversion of the distributorship from online lottery to paper lottery was based on the representation dated 29.08.2018 by the respondent No. 3, which was approved by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The agreement allowed the Government to change the lottery scheme on a request made by the sole distributor. The impugned decision was within the stipulated terms of the contract.4. Alleged Violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:The petitioner argued that the conversion from online lotteries to paper lotteries without inviting fresh tender violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, the court held that lotteries are considered gambling activities, which do not attain the status of trade like other trades or become res commercium. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to invoke Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India seeking protection of his fundamental right for carrying on trade and commerce of the State lotteries.5. Specific Performance of the Contract:The petitioner sought the enforcement of the contract between the respondent No. 3 and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The court held that once the State enters into an ordinary contract with an individual citizen, the relations are governed by the contract and its terms, not by constitutional provisions. The petitioner, not being a signatory to the agreement, cannot seek specific performance of the contract.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the impugned decision allowing the respondent No. 3 to convert the online lottery distributorship to paper lottery. The court found no violation of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner's request for specific performance of the contract was untenable. The interim order passed was vacated.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found