Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

2 SCC 218Reported decision1972#1910 most cited
60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Also referred to as

Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · Tea Act 1953 · legislative competence · constitutional entries · Entry 52 List I · Entry 54 List I · Entry 18 List II · Entry 42 List III · Seventh Schedule Constitution · Union List State List Concurrent List

Judgments citing Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

M/S.S B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17000/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15432/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S GAVISIDDESWARA ENTERPRISES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17583/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

SMT.R.MALLAMMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31145/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

S V SRINIVASULU S/O LATE S.V.CHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15795/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

SRI. M.SRINIVASULU vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15985/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S MEHBOOB TRANSPORT COMPANY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15954/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S. S.B MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31129/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S GOGGA GURUSANTHIAH & BROS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/16145/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORE LTD, vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31148/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

SRI.S.A.THAWAB vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/10712/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S B ASHWATHNARAYANA SINGH & CO., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

WP/31327/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

H N PREMAKUMAR S/O LATE H.N.N. SETTY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY

WP/6721/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

BANASHANKARI IRON ORE MINES vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31184/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORE LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/29222/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/31191/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S TRIDENT MINERALS & OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30928/2008HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

M/S NADEEM MINERALS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15809/2010HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

VEDANTA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/44793/2013HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/35251/2009HC Karnataka03 Dec 2015

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHARJEE (AG.CJ)

…elopment Authority and Others vs. Steel Authority of India and Others [(2011) 4 SCC 450]. (r) Continuing the arguments, Sri Ponnanna, learned Addl. Advocate General, placed reliance on Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala [(1972) 2 SCC 218], wherein, the interpretation of Entry-52 and 54 of List-I and Entry-18 of List-II and Entry 42 of List-III came up for consideration in the context of Tea Act of 1953. (s) With regard to the expression “a body notified by the State Government” in Section 98-A of the Act, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the same must…

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3