Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 311 (5.26 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors on 26 October, 2005

Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006

However, in the present case, we are concerned with the A.P. Act, 1977 which does not impose a total ban on slaughter of a particular type bovine animal, whereas in Mirzapur's case (Supra) this Court dealt with the provisions of Bombay Animal Preservation (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1994 which imposes a total ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny. So far as the A.P. Act, 1977 is concerned, there is no total ban on slaughter of buffaloes. Therefore, in our view, this submission of the Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh cannot at all be accepted, as we are not concerned with the case of striking down a particular provision which imposes an absolute prohibition of slaughter of particular types of bovine animals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 136 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Vikas Jatav vs Directorate General Of Vigilance on 17 April, 2025

"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied Page 15 of 16 And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
Central Information Commission Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Hotel And Restaurants ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 April, 2006

The restrictions, therefore, are reasonable. Even assuming that the prohibition is total it is submitted that the State has produced sufficient material to justify the total prohibition in bars and permit rooms and the experience of past years shows that there is no other option. The Court must also bear in mind that recitals in the preamble and the SOR cannot be disputed and the Court must take the same to be correct. Reliance for that purpose is placed on Question 4, as formulated in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Ors. (supra). The Apex Court there observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 1 - F I Rebello - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel & Retaurants Assn.& Ors on 16 July, 2013

116. The Rules under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 have been framed in the interest of public safety and social welfare and to safeguard the dignity of women as well as prevent exploitation of women. There is no material placed on record by the State to show that it was not possible to deal with the situation within the framework of the existing laws except for the unfounded conclusions recorded in the Preamble as well the Objects and Reasons. [See: State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (supra)], wherein it is held that the standard of judging reasonability of restriction or restrictions amounting to prohibition remains the same, except that a total prohibition must also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate]. The Regulations framed under Section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, more so Regulations 238 and 242 provide that the licensing authority may suspend or cancel a licence for any breach of the license conditions. Regulation 241 empowers the licensing authority or any authorised Police Officer, not below the rank of Sub Inspector, to direct the stoppage of any performance forthwith if the performance is found to be objectionable. Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act empowers a Competent Authority/Police Commissioner/District Magistrate to suspend or revoke a license for breach of its conditions. Thus, sufficient power is vested with the Licensing Authority to safeguard any perceived violation of the dignity of women through obscene dances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 77 - A Kabir - Full Document

Security Association vs Union Of India . on 25 April, 2014

47.Article 254 of the Constitution is only applicable when the State Law is in its ‘pith and substance’ a law relating to an entry of the Concurrent List on which the Parliament has legislated. It has been well established that to determine the validity of a statute with reference to the entries in the various lists,, it is necessary to examine the pith and substance of the Act and to find out if the matter comes within an entry in List-III. The Court while examining the pith and substance of a statute must examine the whole enactment, its objects, scope and effect of its provision. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same matter substantially and that there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises. (See: State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (supra), Offshore Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (supra), State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries & Ors.43).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Security Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 April, 2014

Article 254 of the Constitution is only applicable when the State Law is in its ‘pith and substance’ a law relating to an entry of the Concurrent List on which the Parliament has legislated. It has been well established that to determine the validity of a statute with reference to the entries in the various lists,, it is necessary to examine the pith and substance of the Act and to find out if the matter comes within an entry in List-III. The Court while examining the pith and substance of a statute must examine the whole enactment, its objects, scope and effect of its provision. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same matter substantially and that there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises. (See: State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (supra), Offshore Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. (supra), State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries & Ors.[43]).
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 9 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr on 17 December, 2009

Tested on the basis of this logic in the celebrated decision of State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors. (cited supra), we have no hesitation, but to hold that the application of doctrine of stare decisis cannot help the appellants in this case. We must express here that while rejecting the arguments of appellants, we have in our minds, those thousands of workmen who are otherwise exploited by Toliwalas, Mukadams and at times, the employers. The enactment is a beneficial enactment, providing the protection to such workers, who do not have the honest representation and it is with this lofty idea that a progressive State like State of Maharashtra has brought about this legislation. Viewed from these angles, it will have to be held that the definition would have to be all the more broad, engulfing maximum area to the advantage of a workman. It is with this idea that we reject the argument of the stare decisis, though very ably put by Shri Cama, Shri C.U. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel and other Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 64 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next