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>Court Orders Regularization for Long-term Daily Wage Workers Under *Umadevi* Exception; Zila Panchayat to Conduct Exercise.</h1> <h3>State of Karnataka and Ors. Versus M.L. Kesari and Ors.</h3> The court held that the respondents, who were employed on a daily wage basis for over 15 years, were entitled to be considered for regularization under ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues presented and considered in this judgment are:Whether the respondents, who were appointed on a daily wage basis and continued for over 15 years, are entitled to regularization of their services.Whether the principles laid down in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi apply to the respondents' case.What constitutes a 'one-time measure' for regularization as per the Umadevi judgment, and how should it be implementedRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to RegularizationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The judgment refers to the principles established in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which held that appointments made without following due process do not confer a right to regularization.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that regularization is not an automatic entitlement for employees appointed irregularly. However, an exception exists for employees who have served for more than ten years without court protection.Key Evidence and Findings: The respondents had been employed for over 15 years without any court intervention, fulfilling one of the conditions for the exception under Umadevi.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Umadevi exception, noting that the respondents had served for over ten years in sanctioned posts and possessed the requisite qualifications.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued against regularization based on the general principles of Umadevi, but the court found that the specific exception applied.Conclusions: The court concluded that the respondents are entitled to be considered for regularization under the Umadevi exception.Issue 2: Application of Umadevi PrinciplesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Umadevi judgment outlined conditions under which irregular employees may be regularized as a one-time measure.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reiterated that the Umadevi exception applies to employees who have served for over ten years in sanctioned posts without court orders.Key Evidence and Findings: The respondents fit the criteria outlined in Umadevi for consideration of regularization.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Umadevi exception, directing that the respondents' cases be considered for regularization.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants' reliance on the general principles of Umadevi was countered by the specific exception applicable to the respondents.Conclusions: The court concluded that the respondents' cases should be considered under the Umadevi exception.Issue 3: Implementation of 'One-time Measure'Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Umadevi judgment required a one-time measure for regularization within six months of its decision.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court clarified that the one-time measure should include all eligible employees, even if their cases were pending in court.Key Evidence and Findings: The Zila Panchayat had not undertaken the one-time measure as per Umadevi for the respondents.Application of Law to Facts: The court directed the Zila Panchayat to conduct a one-time regularization exercise, including the respondents.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court addressed the appellants' oversight in excluding the respondents from the one-time measure.Conclusions: The court mandated the Zila Panchayat to complete the one-time measure, considering the respondents for regularization.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the Umadevi exception for regularization and clarifies the implementation of the one-time measure.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court directed the Zila Panchayat to conduct a one-time regularization exercise, considering the respondents' eligibility under the Umadevi exception.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found