Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Habeeb Mohamed vs The State Of Hyderabad on 30 March, 1953

Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi on 6 May, 2014

(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who 65 Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad & Ors. [(1953) 4 SCR 589) 66 Habeeb Mohamed v. State of Hyderabad [1953 SCR 661] 67 Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal [(1954) SCR 30] 68 V.M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1954) SCR 1117] 69 Budhan Choudhry & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1955) 1 SCR 1045] 28 attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles;
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Hans Raj Basant Ram vs Dhanwant Singh Balwant Singh on 8 September, 1960

"The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Charanjit Lal v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869 : AIR 1951 SC 41, State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, 1951 SCR 682 : AIR 1951 SC 318, State of West Bengal v. Anwar AH Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75, Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435 : AIR 1952 SC 123, Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay, 1952 SCR 710 : AIR 1952 SC 235, Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 589 : AIR 1953 SC 156 and Habeeb Mohamhad v. State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661 : AIR 1953 SC 287. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

M.Ct. Muthiah & 2 Others vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras ... on 20 December, 1955

There is also a further point to be considered in this connection and it is that whatever discriminatory procedure the petitioners were subjected to by reason of the reference of their cases by the Central Government to the Commission under section 5(1) of the Act had been completed long before the Act XXXIII of 1954 came into operation and the only further procedure which they would be subjected under the provisions of Act XXX of 1947 would be that of a reference to the High Court on questions of law arising out of the orders of re-assessment if these applications were granted either by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, or by the High Court on further application. In the event of such reference being 1267 made, the petitioners had the additional advantage of having their references heard by the High Court in a Bench constituted of not less than three Judges as contrasted with the normal procedure obtaining under sections 66 and 66-A of the Indian Income-tax Act under which the references could be beard a Division Bench of the High Court. Whatever was, therefore, the procedure to which the petitioners would be subjected under Act XXX of 1947, after the coming into operation of Act XXXIII of 1954 it was, instead of being prejudicial to them, really advantageous to them, and following our decisions in the cases of Syed Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad and Others(1) and Habeeh Mohamed v. The State of Hyderabad(2), we are of the opinion that the further proceedings, if any, which could be taken under the provisions of Act XXX of 1947 would not be at all discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. The only relief which the petitioners would have been entitled to in that event would have been one in regard to the re-assessment proceedings for the year 1942-43 which were pending before the Incometax Officer by virtue of the notice under section 34 issued by him to the petitioners on the 19th March 1954.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 85 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, Cbi & Anr on 6 May, 2014

; [(1970) 1 SCC 595] [53] S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra; [(1979) 1 SCC 535] [54] Major S. K. Kale v. State of Maharashtra; [(1977) 2 SCC 394] [55] C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P.; [(1996) 10 SCC 193] [56] Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar v. State (UT of Goa, Daman & Diu); [(1980) 3 SCC 110] [57] R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay; [(1984) 2 SCC 183] [58] Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat [(1971) 2 SCC 376] [59] Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.; [(2005) 4 SCC 370] [60] Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India & Ors.; [(1950) SCR 869] [61] State of Bombay & Anr. v. F. N. Balsara; [(1951) SCR 682] [62] State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar[(1952) SCR 284] [63] Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra [1952 SCR 435] [64] Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. State of Bombay [1952 SCR 710] [65] Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad & Ors. [(1953) 4 SCR 589) [66] Habeeb Mohamed v. State of Hyderabad [1953 SCR 661] [67] Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal [(1954) SCR 30] [68] V.M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1954) SCR 1117] [69] Budhan Choudhry & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(1955) 1 SCR 1045] [70] C.I. Emden v. State of U.P.; [(1960) 2 SCR 592] [71] Kangsari Haldar & Anr. v. State of West Bengal; [(1960) 2 SCR 646] [72] State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr.; [(1974) 3 SCR 760] [73] A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras; [1957 S.C.R. 399] [74] State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors.; [(1980) 1 SCC 554] [75] J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India & Anr.; [(1999) 5 SCC 138] [76] Shobha Suresh Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, forfeited Property and Anr; [(2001) 5 SCC 755] [77] State of A.P. v. V. Vasudeva Rao [(2004) 9 SCC 319] [78] Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 517] [79] Centre for PIL and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.; [(2011) 4 SCC 1]
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 216 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Unknown vs V.S.Sai Sachin on 31 July, 2017

The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, 1950 SCR 869, The State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435, Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 581, and Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, 1952 SCR 710, and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the Article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure... Hence, the State's action, be it legislative or executive, to pass the test of classification, the two essential conditions spelt out in the above judgment have necessarily to be passed.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N R Rao - Full Document

Unknown vs V.S.Sai Sachin on 31 July, 2017

The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, 1950 SCR 869, The State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435, Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 581, and Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, 1952 SCR 710, and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the Article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure... Hence, the State's action, be it legislative or executive, to pass the test of classification, the two essential conditions spelt out in the above judgment have necessarily to be passed.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N R Rao - Full Document

Unknown vs V.S.Sai Sachin on 31 July, 2017

The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India, 1950 SCR 869, The State of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284, Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435, Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State of Bombay, 1953 SCR 581, and Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad, 1952 SCR 710, and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1953 SCR 661. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the Article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases; namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is well established by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure... Hence, the State's action, be it legislative or executive, to pass the test of classification, the two essential conditions spelt out in the above judgment have necessarily to be passed.
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N R Rao - Full Document
1