KESHAVANANDA BHARATI v. STATE OF KERALA

4 SCC 225Reported decision1973#12743 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2025.

Judgments citing KESHAVANANDA BHARATI v. STATE OF KERALA

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2 vs. M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/619/2019HC Delhi30 Jan 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

Section 263Section 80I

…upon the decisions in the case of Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union [(1976) 2 SCC 82.] , (1991) 1 SCC 171 (sic), (1995) 1 SCC 1811 (sic), G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Institute [AIR 2003 SC 1764 : (2003) 4 SCC 225.] . The principles laid down in those decisions with all fours applicable to the case on hand and therefore BIAL is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it has been discharging statutory functions/duties in establishing International Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:15.02.…

Geetha Pandit Rao and Anr vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/226494/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

…e lost confidence of the Members of the Zilla Panchayat. He further submitted that the democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KESHAVANANDA BHARATI v. STATE OF KERALA reported in (1973)4 SCC 225 and in this regard, the right to elect the representatives as Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat in the instant case, includes the right to recall, to uphold the democratic principles. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHANUMATI v. STATE 30 OF UP AND OTHERS reported i…

Smt Geetha Pandit Rao vs. The Government of Karnataka

In the result, for the foregoing reasons and applying

WP/7717/2020HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice E.S. Indiresh Writ Petition No.7717 Of 2020 (Lb-Res) & Writ Petition No.226494 Of 2020

Sarvodaya Education Trust vs. The Union of India

WP/39434/2013HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Section 1Section 2(1)

…cher. He submits that the teachers employed in a school are not held to be employees under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of HARYANA UNRECOGNISED SCHOOLS’ ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (1996) 4 SCC 225. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of MISS A. SUNDARAMBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AND OTHERS reported in (1988) 4 SCC 42, has expressed the view that the teachers employed by educational institutions cannot be called as ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 20 5. He…

Ms Jayshree Gururaj vs. Cisco Systems (India)Private Limited

WP/19726/2015HC Karnataka06 Oct 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B.S.Patil W.P.No.19726/2015 (S-Dis) Between: Ms.Jayshree Gururaj, D/O. H.S.Gururaja Rao, Aged About 45 Years, Residing At 341, Adarsh Palm Retreat, Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 013.

Section 23

…urt has drawn sustenance from the judgments in the case of FEDERAL BANK LTD. Vs. SAGAR THOMAS – (2003) 10 SCC 733; K.R.ANITHA Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION – (2003) 10 SCC 303 and G.BASSI REDDY Vs. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE – (2003) 4 SCC 225. 24. It is thus evident that while a body discharging public function could be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, merely because the law provides for a general control over the business of a body as per the provisions of a statute, unless the body itself was not generally controlled and supervised as per…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1160/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boazassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 12(1) Vs. M/S.Menzies Aviation Bobba Bangalore. (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) M.P.No.19/Bang/2014 Arising Out Of Ita No.1160/Bang/2012 - Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S.Menzies Aviation Acit, Circle 12(1) Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt. Vs. Bangalore. Ltd. Bangalore. Pan: Aaecm6862D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi For Assessee : Mr. V. Srinivasan Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2015 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-Iii, Bangalore, Dated 11.06.2012 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2

For Appellant: Mr. V. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Mr. Farahat Hussain Qureshi

Section 80I

…ty.” (xxii) The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Apex Court wherein the scope of Article 226 is laid down by the Apex Court in BASI REDDY vs. INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. Reported in (2003) 4 SCC 225 @ 237 the Apex Court has laid down the law that “A Writ under Article 226 can be against a ‘person’ if it is a statutory body or performs a public function or discharges a public or statutory duty.’ In the case of ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA referring to Anadi Mukta’s case it has held that ‘thus, it is 62 ITA.No.1160/Bang/2012 M/s. Menzie…

Gvk Inds. Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

C.A. No.-007796-007796 - 1997Supreme Court01 Mar 2011

…the organs of the State in discharging their constitutional responsibilities. Powers that have been granted, and implied by, and borne by the Constitutional text have to be perforce admitted. Nevertheless, the very essence of 17 (1973) 4 SCC 225 18 (2007) 2 SCC 1 26 constitutionalism is also that no organ of the state may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the Constitution. Walking on that razors edge is the duty of the judiciary. Judicial restraint is necessary in dealing with the powers of another coordinate branch of the government; but restra…

M/S. Amco Batteries Ltd., Bangalore vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

C.A. No.-005941-005942 - 1999Supreme Court26 Feb 2003

For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore

Section 3

…nd Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(1993) 1 SCC http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 55 645], while considering the ambit of Article 21, he succinctly placed it thus: "25. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [(1973) 4 SCC 225], Mathew J stated therein that the fundamental rights themselves have no fixed content, most of them are empty vessels into which each generation must pour its content in the light of its experience. It is relevant in this context to remember that in building up a just social order it is sometimes imperative that the fundamental rights should be s…