KAHC020022992017_1
2 Apr 2024These intra-court writ appeals arose from a common order dated 25.04.2017, by which a single judge of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the appel...
Search Results for "road user fee"
184 result(s) found
Found 184 result(s)
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Renewal of Stage Carriage Permits as Continuation, Not Fresh Grant Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court clarified that Section 81 of the MV Act treats renewal as a continuation of the original permit, and Regional Transport Authority cannot impose additional conditions beyond the Act.
4 Nov 2025The judgment involves multiple appeals and a writ petition concerning the renewal of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The pr...
- 129
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Toll Collection on National Highways — Holds Toll Plazas Within Municipal Limits Not Illegal Under NH Act and Rules. Court interprets Rule 9 of National Highways Fee Rules, 2008 as not requiring alternative road for every toll plaza; toll collection upheld as valid fee for highway use.
13 Apr 2017The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of public interest litigations and writ petitions challenging the collection of toll on national highways pass...
- 88
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Vodafone TDS Case — No Substantial Question of Law Arises. The court upheld the ITAT's order deleting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-deduction of TDS on roaming and interconnect charges, holding that such payments are not 'fees for technical services' and that the assessee had a bona fide belief that no TDS was deductible.
28 Jul 2016The case involves appeals filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS) against the common order o...
- 174
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Plaint for Non-Payment of Proper Court Fees in Suit for Declaration and Injunction. Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 7(iv)(c) and Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 Section 6(iv)(j) require ad valorem court fees on market value where plaintiff is not in possession.
9 Feb 2010The case involves a civil revision application filed by the plaintiffs (revision applicants) against an order of the trial court rejecting their plain...
- 84
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging BMC Water Charges Revision for Industrial Users — Resolution Held Valid Under Section 169 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Standing Committee's Power to Revise Water Charges Based on Consumption Upheld as Not Unconstitutional.
19 Mar 2010The petitioners, a company engaged in spinning and weaving textiles and its shareholder, challenged a resolution of the Standing Committee of the Brih...
- 109
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Pronounces Order on Writ Petition Challenging Trial Court's Preliminary Findings on Maintainability and Court Fee in Easementary Suit; Trial Court Had Ruled That the Suit for Declaration of Easementary Right-of-Way Was Properly Valued Under Sections 24(d), 26(a), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and Not Based on Market Value of the Property Under Section 24(a).
20 Jul 2026This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, K...
- 57
High Court
Karnataka High Court Quashes Compounding Fee Demand Under Section 96(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for Want of Prior Conversion of Patta Land. Quarrying Activity Commenced When Law Did Not Require Conversion as per Shakeel Pasha v. N. Sivasailam, Hence No Violation of Section 95.
2 Aug 2013The petitioner, a mineral company holding three quarrying licences granted in 2000 and 2002 for extraction of pink granite on patta agricultural lands...
- 65
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Bus Operators' Challenge to RTO Circular on Contract Carriage Permits — Circular Held Valid as Clarificatory and Not Imposing New Conditions. The court held that the impugned circular dated 19.02.2025 is merely clarificatory and does not impose any new conditions beyond those under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2 Jun 2025The petitioners, an association of bus operators and individual bus operators holding contract carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ch...
- 152
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Upholds Validity of Premium Floor Area Ratio Scheme and Rejects Challenges Under Articles 14, 21, 243ZE, and 300A of Constitution. Section 18-B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Section 38-D of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 Held Not Violative of Constitution, and All Impugned Notifications Sustained.
15 Jun 2026The matter concerns a batch of cases challenging the constitutional validity of statutory provisions introducing the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) sc...
- 88
