Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
E.S.INDIRESH
M/S SHARADA SUGARS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to distance certificate issuance (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's observation on clubbing and hearing of petitions (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 16) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against respondents' actions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. criteria for automatic derecognition of iem (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. conclusion on dismissal of writ petitions (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
E.S.INDIRESH, J.
In W.P.No.2274 of 2023, the petitioner-Company is assailing the order dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.3, order dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-AA) passed by the respondent No.2, communication dated 21.02.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent No.3, to issue Distance Certificate to the petitioner-Company by considering the representation dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure-B).
2. In W.P.No.16674 of 2023, the petitioner-Company is assailing the Distance Certificate dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5, order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.4, in favour of respondent No.5 (Annexure-B), order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.1, IEM (hereinafter referred
The court upheld the automatic derecognition of an Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 due to failure to commence operations, reinforcing compliance as critic....
An individual or entity lacking direct interest cannot contest administrative decisions regarding Distance Certificates or IEM annulments without due process being followed, specifically the provisio....
Violation of principles of natural justice in the allotment of Kammapuram Firka to the third respondent Sugar Mill
The court ruled that administrative actions infringing rights must follow principles of natural justice, requiring a hearing before imposing restrictions under the Sugarcane (Control) Order.
Point of law: Escrow Account opened by the Sugarcane Commissioner in this case is not referable to Section 17(5) of the Act, 1953 read with Rule 48A of the Rules, 1954, we do not wish to interfere wi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
