Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 573 (2.84 seconds)
Documents citing Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960

Pathumma And Others vs State Of Kerala And Others on 16 January, 1978

As has been urged on behalf of the State, an answer to this argument is to be found in clause (5) of Article 19 which specifically provides, inter alia, that nothing in sub- clause (f) of clause (1) of article 19 shall "prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the. rights" conferred by the said sub-clause in the interest of the general public. It cannot be gainsaid that agriculturists, and even indebted agriculturists, from the bulk or, at any rate, a considerable part of the rural population, in an essentially rural economy like ours, and so if a restriction is reasonable in their interest, it would squarely fall within the purview of clause (5). Reference in this connection may be made to this Court's decision in Kavalappara Kattarathil Kochuni and Others v. The State of Madras anti others(1) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Khapperelli Chinna Venkata Chalamayya Sastri(2) where it has been held that the redress (1 [1960] 3 S.C.R. 837.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 170 - S M Ali - Full Document

Hanifa Hasan Nakhawa vs The Chairman And Estate Manager Board Of ... on 27 March, 2018

"50....... The rule is that when general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. But it is clearly laid down by decided ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 00:50:01 ::: {48} wp305817a.odt cases that the specific words must form a distinct genus or category. It is not an inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary."
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Satayam Elakarambath vs The Chairman And Estate Manager, Board ... on 27 March, 2018

"50....... The rule is that when general words follow particular and specific words of the same nature, the general words must be confined to the things of the same kind as those specified. But it is clearly laid down by decided ::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/04/2018 00:50:17 ::: {48} wp305817a.odt cases that the specific words must form a distinct genus or category. It is not an inviolable rule of law, but is only permissible inference in the absence of any indication to the contrary."
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next