Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs The State on 28 November, 1950

Sheikh Wajih Uddin vs The State on 2 May, 1962

Our attention was also invited to Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State, AIR 1951 Punj 27, in which Sections 124-A and 153-A were held ultra vires Article 19(2) of the Constitution. That case was decided before the second Clause of Article 19 had been amended by the First Amendment Act, 1951. The learned Judges who decided that case, therefore, had no occasion to consider as to what would be the effect of the changes made in that Clause and as to whether the use of the words "in the interest of public order" would have justified holding that Sections 124-A and 153-A were not constitutional. Besides the Punjab view cannot be considered to be good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (AIR 1962 SC 955) already referred to above.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Debi Soren And Ors. vs The State on 24 September, 1953

The two learned Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the decision in - 'Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State' AIR 1951 Punj 27 (A), That was a case in which the speeches impugned were delivered after the coming into force of the Constitution of India, and the question arose whether Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code were void as contravening the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. Their Lordships held that those two sections were void. Since that decision there has been a change in the Constitution to which a reference must now be made. Article 19(1) (a) lays down that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) as it originally stood in the Constitution of India said:
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Daya Ram vs Smt. Reshmu on 2 June, 1965

8. It is clear that a Compensation Officer is not a Court. The case of a Compensation Officer is analogous to a Controller, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A Controller is empowered to decide certain disputes between a landlord and a tenant and is invested with the powers of a Civil Court for summoning and on forcing the attendance of witnesses. An appeal, against his order, lies to an appellate authority and a revision to the High Court. Though, the powers of a Controller and the appellate authority are exercised by Subordinate Judges and District Judges, respectively, yet neither the Controller nor the appellate authority has been held to be a Court. Reference may be made to Tara Chand v. State. 64 Pun LR 1022: (AIR 1962 Punj 555).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Subhash Chander vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 5 December, 1978

21. The argument advanced on the basis of Art. 20 may he summarised thus, sub-section (3) of S. 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, lays down that a Central Act or a Regulation shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding its commencement, which implies that even if a notification is issued during day time, by a legal fiction it would be deemed to have commenced after the mid-night of the preceding day. So considered, an innocent action of the petitioner about stocking and sale of Ayurvedic drugs had become illegal from the morning of the day on which the impugned notification was issued. On the basis of the principle laid down in Tara Chand Gopi Chand v. State, AIR 1951 Punj 27, it was submitted that if some action which was constitutional and valid and some of it which was unconstitutional could be taken under the same provision, the whole of it should be declared unconstitutional.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Harnam Singh Arjan Singh vs Punjab State Through The Home Secretary ... on 21 January, 1958

(c) * It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order can toe justified only under Section 3(b) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that this provision of law contravenes Article 19 of the Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional. There is force in this contention. Similar words occur in Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, and it was held in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, AIR 1951 Punj. 27 (A), by a Division Bench of this Court that Section 124A. Indian Penal Code, contravenes Article 19 of the Constitution as it places unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression which, is guaranteed to all citizens by Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1