Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Vedulapalli Satyanarayana Murhty & ... vs State Of Madras on 31 March, 1955

S. Viswanatham vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal And ... on 8 June, 1976

The decision in that case in regard to the invalidity of R. 134-A is based not on the ground that no rule in regard to delegation can be made under Section 68(1) but on the ground that no rule which travels beyond the provisions of the Act can be given effect to. In the Full Bench case of Satyanarayana v. Madras State, the majority followed the view taken in Amaravathi Transport Company v. State. In neither of the two cases cited, was there any observations in regard to the want of power on the part of the Government to make a rule in regard to the delegation of the powers and functions of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to any other Officer, by the Government.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orissa State Co-Operative Marketing ... vs Associated Marketing Co. on 5 September, 1981

In Satyanarayana v. State of Madras (now Andhra), AIR 1957 Andh Pra 474, the Court had to examine as to if the manufacturer of goods was selling the same through a commission agent or the manufacturer's goods had been purchased and were sold by the dealer in his turn. While analysing the facts available on record, the learned single judge pointed out (at p. 476):--
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Assanar Pillai Mohammed Kassim Pillai vs Secretary, State Transport Authority, ... on 6 March, 1962

8.But the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Satyanarayana v. State of Madras, (S) AIR 1957 Andh Pra 1027 has been pressed before us and reliance has been placed also on an earlier decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1956 Andhra 232 and it is urged that Rule 133 is illegal and that in any event S 60(1) must be held to override the provision in Rule 133(xi). With the utmost respect to the learn-ed Judges who decided those cases, we are unable to agree with the views expressed therein.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kannula Seshamma (Deceased By L. R'S.) vs M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 8 August, 1990

2. Before going into the point referred, it is necessary to indicate the procedure which should be followed by learned single Judges for reference of any matter to a Full Bench. There is no provision in the Appellate side Rules enabling a single Judge directly to refer any matter to a Full Bench. Rule 2 of the said Rules provides that if both Judges constituting the Bench agree that the determination involves a question of law, they may order that the matter or the question of law should be referred to a Full Bench. Rule 6 enacts that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing rules to the contrary, the Chief Justice may direct that any application, petition, suit, appeal or reference shall be heard by a Full Bench as defined in the rules. It has been laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this court, namely, Subbarayudu v. The State, (FB) as reiterated in Satryanarayana v. Madras Stale, AIR 1957 Andh Pra 1027 (FB) that it is not open to a single Judge of this Court to refer any matter straightway to a Full Bench. He has first to refer the matter to a Division Bench giving his reasons as to why he considers that the matter should go before a Full Bench and it will then be for the Division Bench to consider whether it is necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanmula Seshamma And Others vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 8 August, 1990

Before going into the point referred, it is necessary to indicate the procedure which should be followed by learned single judges for reference of any matter to a Full Bench. There is no provision in the appellate side rules enabling a single judge directly to refer any matter to a Full Bench. Rule 2 of the said Rules provides that, if both judges constitution the Bench agree that the determination involves a question of law, they may order that the matter or the question of law should be referred to a Full Bench. Rule 6 enacts that notwithstanding anything in the foregoing rules to the contrary, the Chief Justice may direct that any application, petition suit, appeal or reference shall be heard by a Full Bench as defined in the rules. It has been laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this court, namely, M. Subbarayudu v. State, AIR 1955 AP 87 [FB] as reiterated in Satyanarayana v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 AP 1027 [FB] that it is not open to a single judge of this court to refer any matter straightaway to a Full Bench. He has first to refer the matter should go before a Full Bench and it will then be for the Division Bench to consider whether it is necessary to refer the matter to a Full Bench.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1