Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 288 (4.10 seconds)
Documents citing Dharam Dutt & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2003

Rajasthan Cricket Association And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2004

34. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General canvassed that the ordinance does not directly or indirectly restricts the right of any individual to form an association. The right of an association to represent the state or the District is not fundamental right of any individual but is a concomitant right of the association, regulation of which is not guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. Since the Individual's right under Article 19(1)(c) is not violated, the issue that the regulatory mechanism is a permissible restriction under Article 19(4) will not arise. If the right of association under Article 19(1)(c), does not exist then the regulations are in public interest covered under Article 19(6). Reliance is placed on (Tika Ramji's case) (AIR 1956 SC 676), (P. Balakotaiash's case) (AIR 1958 SC 232) (All India Bank Employees' case) (AIR 1962 SC 171), (Balmer Lawrie Workers Union's case) (AIR 1985 SC 311), (Chairman, SBI's case) (2002) SCC 669), and (Dharam Dutt's case) (supra).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 55 - Cited by 3 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

B.R. Vasudevamurthy S/O. H.D. ... vs Hon'Ble Minister For Revenue, ... on 22 December, 2006

37. Since the lands in question were vested with the State Government under Section 1(4) of the Inam Abolition Act and in view of the rights conferred upon the inamdars under Section 9 of the Inams Abolition Act to claim occupancy rights upon the lands in question and the application of the inamdars in that connection was pending consideration before the Land Tribunal, the State Government had no jurisdiction to exercise its power and grant the inam lands in favour of the Sangha under the Land Grant Rules. More over, the above legal contention in this regard was neither urged on behalf of the inamdars nor considered in the earlier writ proceedings. Hence, the legal contention urged by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. U.L. Bhat that the decision in the earlier Writ Petition and Writ Appeal referred to supra operates as res judicata, cannot be accepted by us. The decisions of the Apex Court (Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors.), (Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), (P.M.A. Metropolitan v. M.M. Martho), (State of Maharashtra v. National Construction Co. Bombay), and ILR (16) Calcutta 98 (Chand Kour and Anr. v. Partab Singh and Ors.) relied upon in this connection by Mr. V. Laxminarayana are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

B. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2007

In Dharam Dutt and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (10 supra), it was stated that a fundamental right to form an association cannot be coupled with the fundamental right to carry on any trade or business and that a restriction on the activities of the association is not a restriction on the activities of the individual citizens forming membership of the association. In that case, the society was left untouched and uninterfered with in respect of membership or the governing body or the activities and the new body corporate is different from the society.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 125 - Cited by 2 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Sp.Chockalingam vs Controller Of Patents on 15 March, 2013

44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Dutt vs. Union of India (referred to above), has held that fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution cannot be taken away by legislation, though the said right is subject to any reasonable restriction. Preventing advocates, who are better qualified persons, ignoring the ground reality that conducting law examination in Patents Act and drafting by the respondents would not make the other group of patent agents as better qualified persons than advocates to register themselves as patent agents. The said amendment would create only a monopoly of certain group of persons, who are amenable to the authorities in the name of patent agents under the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document

Sri Konkadi Padmanabha vs The Union Of India on 11 September, 2015

12. How a Court should examine the matter when it is confronted with a challenge to the constitutional validity of any legislative enactment by reference to Article 19 of the Constitution is stated by the Supreme Court in Dharam Dutt v. Union of India [(2004)1 SCC 712]. Scope of the right under Article 19(1)(c) is also stated therein. The following observations made therein are pertinent:
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next