Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 149 (4.28 seconds)
Documents citing Vasantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala vs The State Of Bombay And Others.(And ... on 25 August, 1960

Corporation Of Calcutta And Another vs Liberty Cinema on 14 December, 1964

for the fixation of a reasonable rent under s. 12 by the Mamlatdar the necessary factors had all been specified and on a construction of the Act the learned Judges of the majority reached a conclusion that the exercise of powers under s. 6(2) had to be effected on the same basis and with reference to the same factors which were specified in s. 12(3) of the Act. It is precisely on this question of the construction of the Act and the correlation between the power to fix the rent conferred upon the State Government by s. 6(2) and the power of fixation of fair rent, conferred on the Mamlatdar by s. 12 that there was the difference of opinion between the learned Judges. It would, therefore, be seen that far from Vasantlal's case being an authority for the position that the fixation of a rate of rent is not an essential legislative function but a mere matter of detail which could be left wholly to the executive or subordinate law making authority the decision clearly lays down that it is an essential legislative function and it could. not be delegated without sufficient guidance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 462 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

583. The cases which fall in the second category are decidedly numerous. It has been consistently laid down chat there is an implied limitation on the legislative power; the legislature cannot delegate the essentials of the legislative function. Mukherjea J. (who later became Chief Justice) in Re. Delhi Laws Act 1912 case (1951) S.C.R. 747 at pp. 984-985 stated in clear language that the right of delegation may be implied in the exercise of legislative power only to the extent that it is necessary to make the exercise of the power effective and complete. The same implied limitation on the legislature, in the field of delegation, has been invoked in Raj Narain Singh v. Patna Administration [1955] 2 S.C.R. 290; Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1955] 1 S.C.R. 380; Vasantlal Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay [1961] 1 S.C.R. 341; The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills [1968] 3 S.C.R. 251 and Grewal D.S. v. State of Punjabi [1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 792.
Supreme Court of India Cites 573 - Cited by 999 - Full Document

Associates Of Ncte Approved Colleges ... vs National Council For Teacher Education on 27 May, 2021

"4. It is now well-established by the decisions of this court that the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole, and that in modern times when the legislatures enact laws to meet the challenge of the complex socio-economic problems, they often find it convenient and necessary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out the policy laid down by their Acts. The extent to which such delegation is permissible is also now well-settled. The legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function in any case. It must lay down the legislative policy and principle, and must afford guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates its subsidiary powers in that behalf.
Delhi High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Birla Cotton, Spinning And Weaving ... on 23 February, 1968

The learned Judge proceeded to derive the principle stated by him from the decisions in The Western India Theatres Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona(1); Vasantlal Maganbhai Sajanwala v. The State of Bombay (3) ; Union of India v. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal(1); Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(2). But the cases cited did not make the needs of the taxing body a test for determining whether guidance was furnished to the delegate in exercising the power to tax. While we agree with the view expressed by Sarkar, J., that in the case of a self-governing local authority with taxing power, a large amount of flexibility in the guidance to be provided for the exercise of that power must exist, we are unable to hold that because the delegate is a local authority which "needs" large funds, depending upon diverse and changing circumstances, the power conferred upon the Corporation to adjust the tax to its varying needs may be regarded as in adequate guide. (1)[1965] 2 S.C.R. 477. (2) [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 71. (3) [1961] S.C.R. 341. (4) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 627.
Supreme Court of India Cites 69 - Cited by 261 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

The Collective Farming Society Ltd. And ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 8 October, 1973

16. Although the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power, the true position is that while the essential legislative functions cannot be delegated it is permissible to delegate non-essential legislative functions. It is, therefore, necessary to draw a line of demarcation between essential and non-essential legislative functions. The legislature has to formulate the legislative policy and then it is free to delegate the work of formulation of details for carrying out that policy. To put it differently, what can be delegated is something which is ancillary or in aid of exercise of the legislative function by the legislation to make laws effective. When the Act lays down the policy in broad terms, the legislature can pass on to the executive the function of filling the details of that policy. Laying down legislative policy is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature but, in its discretion, it is free to authorise the executive to do certain things in pursuance of the legislative intendment. See Raj Narain Singh v. Patna Administration, (1955) 1 SCR 290 = 1954 SC 569) : Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of M.P. (1955) 1 SCR 380 = AIR 1954 SC 465, D. S. Garewal v. State of Punjab 1959 Suppl (1) SCR 792 = (AIR 1959 SC 512); Vasantlal Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay, (1961) 1 SCR 341 = (AIR 1961 SC 4) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton Mills (1963) 3 SCR 251 = AIR 1968 SC 1232.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Kripal Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 November, 1973

In Vasanlal Maganbhai v. State of Bombay , the question raised before the Supreme Court was that under the Bombay Tenancy Act, power to issue notification could be only exercised once and it was exhausted once the power was exercised. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court as fallicious in the light of the provisions of Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. It was observed in that case that while the legislature did not use the words from time to time in Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act although had used such terms in Section 8(1) of the same Act it will not mean that the power was exhausted. Under the provisions of section It of the General Clauses Act, the power could be exercised from time to time as occasion required as there was no intention to the contrary in the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Indulal K. Yagnik vs State And Ors. on 4 May, 1962

"It is now well established that the power of delegation is a constituent element of the legislative power as a whole, and in modern limes when the legislatures enact laws to meet the challenge of the complex socio-economic problems, they often find it convenient and necessary to delegate subsidiary or ancillary powers to delegates of their choice for carrying out the policy laid down by their Acts:
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next