Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.01 seconds)
Documents citing Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki vs Corporation Of The City Of Nagpur on 12 January, 1960

Hindurao Balwant Patil And Anr. vs Krishnaro Pashuram Patil And Ors. on 7 July, 1981

A persom is elected ad Chairman or Vice-Chairman for a particular term. His office is controlled by the provisions of the Act. It is not an office at will and therefore, to such an office Section 16 of the Genral Clauses Act cannot apply. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in detail in view of the decision of this Court in Jehangir Bhikaji v. Corporation of City no Nagpur, 1960 Nag NJ 99.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Nandlal Bavanjibhai Posiya And Ors. vs Director Of Agriculture Marketing & ... on 8 February, 2002

27. Heavy reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Veerarnachaneni Venkata Narayana v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operalive Societies, Eluru, Weal Godavari District and Ors., reported in 1975 ILR 242; Full Bench decision of Punjah and Haryana High Court in the cast of Jagde Singh v. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 P&H 149; Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in the case of Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur, reported in 1960 LLJ 99 and Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Hirtdurao Balwant Patil and Anr. v. Krishnarao Parshuram Patil and Ors., reported in AIR 1982 Bom. 216.
Gujarat High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 16 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Anil Agarwal & Others And Vinod Kumar & ... vs The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... on 21 January, 2000

A person is elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman for a particular term. His office is controlled by the provisions of the Act. It is not an office at will and therefore, to such an office Section 16 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in detail in view of the decision of this Court in Jehangir Bhikaji Vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur, 1960 Nag. LJ 99.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anil Agarwal vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants on 21 January, 2000

A person is elected as Chairman or Vice-Chairman for a particular term. His office is controlled by the provisions of the Act. It is not an office at will and, therefore, to such an office section 16 of the General Clauses Act cannot apply. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter in detail in view of the decision of this court in Jehangir Bhikaji v. Corporation of City of Nagpur, 1960 Nag. LJ 99.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ramesh Bhauraoji And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 23 December, 1983

17. The question then which falls for consideration is whether the State Government, can press into service the power conferred on it by Sub-section (2) of Section 8 read with Rule 4A for terminating the appointment of a member who is appointed as such prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act Mr. Manohar for the petitioners contends that these provisions are not retrospective and cannot operate on the appointment of a person who has been nominated prior to their coming into force. He contends that by virtue of their nomination, the petitioners had acquired a vested right to hold office as members of the Corporation for a term of two years as provided by Rule 4 (1)(a) and this vested right cannot be taken away by sub Section (2) of Section 8 since it is not only not made retrospective by any express provision but even by necessary intendment also it cannot be deemed to have any retrospective effect. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that no statute, unless it be a statute dealing with procedure, can be construed to have retrospective operation unless it so provides either expressly or by necessary implication or intendment and a vested right cannot be taken away by a statute which is prospective in operation and not retrospective. There is ample authority for the proposition that a member, who is nominated to a Body for a fixed tenure, acquires a vested right to hold that office for that period subject to the provisions of the Statute under which the Body is created. A reference in this respect may be had to paragraph 16 of the report in Jehangir's case and paragraph 6 of the report in Hari Singh v. State 1964 Jab LJ 585. The Amendment Act does not make Sub-section (2) of Section 8 which is inserted by it retrospective. There is nothing in the Amendment Act from which it could be inferred that the Legislature intended this Sub-section to operate retrospectively Mr. Manohar is, therefore, right when he says that this Sub-section operates prospectively and not retros-peclively and it, therefore, follows that if it is so it would not affect the right of the members who are appointed prior to the coming into force of the Amendment Act. There would not have been much difficulty in upholding the contention of Mr. Manohar, had the legislature not enacted Section 15 in the Amendment Act. In the absence of that Section, it would have been possible to say that the provisions of the new Section 5 and Sub-section (2) of Section 8 would operate only on the Directors who would appointed after the commencement of the Amendment Act. However, the provision contained in Section 15 of the Amendment Act robs the petitioners of this contention.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Agricultural Produce Market Commitee vs Patel Jayantilal Purshottamdas on 24 October, 2001

7. Alternatively, it is urged that in any case, the appellant having been re-elected as a councillor, his earlier status as nominee of the erstwhile elected municipal council would continue. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Bombay High court in Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki vs. Corporation of the city of Nagpur, (1960) 62 BLR 450 and decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kanta Devi vs. Rajasthan State, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 134.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Patel Jayantilal Purshottamdas And ... on 24 October, 2001

7. Alternatively, it is urged that in any case, the appellant having been re-elected as a councillor, his earlier status as nominee of the erstwhile elected Municipal Council would continue. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Jehangir Bhikaji Panthaki v. Corporation of the City of Nagpur, 1960 (62) BLR 450 and decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Kanta Devi v. Rajasthan State, AIR 1957 Raj. 134.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

B.S. Choube vs Nagpur Univiersity, Nagpur And Anr. on 25 October, 1985

In this connection, useful reference may be made to the case of Jehandir Bhikaji Panthaki v. Corpn. of the City of Nagpur, 1960 Nag LJ 99. City of Nagpur Corporation Act contained a provision for having a representation to a Textile Mills in the Corporations as a Councillor. Jehandir Panthaki was appointed as a Councillor on behalf of the Textile Mills. Subsequently the relationship of master and servant between him and the Mills came to an end and the Mills took the decision of cancelling his representation. Point arose whether he automatically creased to be a Councillor thereby and incurred disqualification because of the subsequent event. In this background, the following observations dealing with disqualification clause were made :
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1