Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

3 SCC 666Reported decision1992#4742 most cited
25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 35acsection 10(22)section 11(4)section 115bbcsection 35asection 2(45)anonymous donationsection 60section 11(4a)rectification under section 154corpus fundsection 13(3)

Judgments citing Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 981/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 980/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 979/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 978/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 977/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 976/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S SINDHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ( MADRAS ), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 975/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…s the assessee has collected extra fees over and above the fees prescribed by the government. Collection of any amount exceeding the prescribed fee is prohibited by law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6 SCC 69…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…A Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 Page 35 of 68 but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

BHARATHI EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

Accordingly the appeal of assessee stands allowed on ground

ITA 586/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ected only by way of capitation fee and that such amount of capitation fee was not exempt in the hands of assessee. The Ld.AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page 4 of 9 Court in case of Mohini Jain vs State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (1992) 3 SCC 666. The Ld.AO thus levied penalty by holding that assessee filed inaccurate particulars. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 6. The Ld.CIT(A), upheld the order of the Ld.AO by rejecting the contentions of assessee. There was certain clerical error in the computation of penalty which was correc…

TARAKARAMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 321/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

…aw the approval, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A copy of the order will be served on the educational institution and to the Assessing Officer. 6.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms.Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhoreent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6SCC697)…

KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 320/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

…aw the approval, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A copy of the order will be served on the educational institution and to the Assessing Officer. 6.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms.Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhoreent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6SCC697)…

CHURCH EDUCATINAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 319/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

…aw the approval, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A copy of the order will be served on the educational institution and to the Assessing Officer. 6.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms.Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhoreent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6SCC697)…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2