Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962

Sri. Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2024

91. Drawing upon the rationale established in the State of West Bengal v. Union of India case mentioned supra, this court finds that these writ petitions clearly fall within the ambit of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The dispute involves a legal question concerning the extent of the Central Government's authority to deploy the CBI within a State, that has withdrawn its consent. The resolution of this dispute will directly impact the legal rights and jurisdiction of both the Central and State
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2024

91. Drawing upon the rationale established in the State of West Bengal v. Union of India case mentioned supra, this court finds that these writ petitions clearly fall within the ambit of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The dispute involves a legal question concerning the extent of the Central Government's authority to deploy the CBI within a State, that has withdrawn its consent. The resolution of this dispute will directly impact the legal rights and jurisdiction of both the Central and State
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2024

The facts obtaining before the Division Bench were different and therefore are distinguishable with the facts and the contentions urged in the case at hand, again without much ado. Above all, the Division Bench was following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL supra. Therefore, the submission of the learned Attorney General of India that Article 131 of the Constitution of India is not even applicable in the case at hand becomes acceptable and there is no threshold bar for this Court to consider the issue brought up by the petitioner/Union Bank of India in the subject petition. The issue is answered accordingly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Dundamada Shetty on 8 September, 1993

He stated that in the Decision , supra, the Bench of four learned Judges, in paragraphs 21 & 23 of the said Judgment at page 1661, had wrongly assumed that there were two separate cases with which they were dealing while in fact, in para 20 of the Report, their Lordships have referred to the Decision in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. UNION OF INDIA, only. However, in paragraph 22 at page 1250, the Constitutional Bench, which decided the case had listed contention No. 7 while at para 68 at page 1265 of the report, answer was given against the said contention.
Karnataka High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 6 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Union Home Products Ltd. vs Union Of India And Another on 24 February, 1995

18. That apart, it is one of the well recognised principles governing interpretation of statutes that the Statement of Objects and Reasons is not admissible for construing the provisions contained in an enactment much less can it control the actual words used in the legislation. It is equally well settled that the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill cannot be used except for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading up to the legislation. All that the Statement of Objects and Reasons can possibly show is to explain what reasons induced the mover to introduce the Bill in the House and what objects it sought to achieve. Those objects and reasons may or may not correspond to the objective which the majority of members had in view when they passed it into law. The Bill may have undergone radical changes during its passage through the Houses, as there is no guarantee that the reasons which led to its introduction and the objects thereby sought to be achieved have remained the same throughout till the Bill emerges from the House as an Act of the Legislature. It is, therefore, very rarely and rather sparingly that the Statement of Objects and Reasons behind the introduction of the Bill is called in did for arriving at the true legislature intent behind a particular statutory provision. Reference in this connection may be made to Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose, , Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen and State of West Bengal v. Union of India, .
Karnataka High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 59 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Karnataka Breweries And Distilleries ... vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 1993

There is no legal requirement that a law should have explanatory "Objects and Reasons" attached to it. Even in a case where the law has an "Object and Reasons" attached to it, the reasons given are not conclusive. There is a strong authority for the proposition that statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill, cannot be used except for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading upto the legislation. (See STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. UNION OF INDIA, While considering the constitutionality of a law even the affidavits filed by the parties (including those filed on behalf of the State) as to the purpose and the scheme of the law, are not conclusive and Courts may ignore them, (vide SANJEEV COKE CO. v. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ANR., The basis for the legislation and the object sought to be realised by the law can be inferred by the Court on a consideration of all the provisions of the law in question.
Karnataka High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M.D. Narayan vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 8 September, 1997

In this behalf reliance was also placed on State of West Bengal v Union of India , wherein it has been held that the statement of objects and reasons accompanying a bill, when introduced in Parliament, cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of the statute. They cannot be used except for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading up to the legislation. The Courts should not use the statement as an aid to the construction of the enactment.
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 7 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1   2 Next