Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Narain Dass Daulat Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 7 June, 1978

Rajkot Lodhika Sahakari Kharid Vechan ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 9 September, 1980

56. The learned Government Pleader has next invited our attention to the decision in MA. Narain Dass Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 310. It was a case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 The Haryana Government issued under that Act a notification prohibiting the use of milk for the manufacture of cream and its export out of the State for a period of about two months. The validity of that notification was challenged before the High Court, It has been held that Article 301 was not violated because Article 19(1)(g) was not violated. It has been observed in that decision that since the notification impugned in that decision was reasonable under Article 19(1)(g), it was also reasonable under Article 301.
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Shashi Singla vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 17 November, 1997

26. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in the grievance made by the petitioner against the deemed cancellation of the plot allotted to her under the discretionary quota. The memo Annexure P-1 dated 11.6.1987, is not the letter of allotment. Rather, it is a communication by the Chief Administrator, HUDA to the Estate Officer, HUDA Faridabad to make allotment on receipt of 25% of the tentative cost of the plot. However, before the actual allotment could be made, the ; government cancelled the allotments already made as well as the offer of allotment. No doubt, in S.R. Das's case, the High court invalidated the policy decision of the Government but the effect of that decision qua the petitioner was no more than to ' revive the offer of allotment. As per her own admission, the petitioner deposited the two drafts in March and November, 1990 representing 25% of the tentative cost. The allotment was actually made vide Annexure Rule 3/1 dated 7.3.1991 which she accepted on 3.4.1991.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Singh - Full Document

Harpal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 January, 1999

Reliance on behalf of the claimants was also placed on Ex.P.5, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.16. It was contended that the judgments Ex.P.5 and P.13 have already become final and would form definite basis for awarding enhanced compensation to the claimants. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard or in any case Rs. 136/- with 12% increase per year. To meet this case of the claimants, the respondents produced no oral evidence in their support and only tendered Ex.R.1 which is the copy of award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 17.3.1987 in LAC No. 105/4 of 10.3.1986 titled as 'Mahant Ram Narain Dass v. State of Haryana'. As is evident, the basic factor which falls for determination by the Court is the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the petitioners in regard to sale instances or otherwise. Before I enter into this field of controversy, I would prefer to refer to the findings arrived at by the learned. District Judge on the issue of payment of compensation, which run as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Anil Sabharwal vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 21 March, 1997

34. After having given our most anxious thought to the judgment of the Division Bench in S.R. Dass's case, we agree with it that the Government has the power to give directions to the HUDA for carrying out the provisions of the Act. We also agree with it that the Government can make reservation of plot while making development of the urban estates but we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Division Bench that the powers vesting in the Government Under Section 15 read with Section 30 of the Act are unlimited. In our opinion, the Division Bench has erred in recording that conclusion. Apparently it did not give due regard to the opening words of Section 15(1) and last part of Section 30(1) of the Act. A perusal of these provisions makes it clear that the Government can give directions to the HUDA only for the efficient administration of the Act and the Government's powers to give directions to the HUDA are not unfettered. We cannot accept the proposition that the Government can give; directions inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Rather, such directions must not only be consistent with the provisions of the Act but the same must conform to the constitutional limitations. We, therefore, disapprove the view taken by the Division bench that the powers vested in the State Government under the Act are unlimited.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 37 - H S Bedi - Full Document

Ramesh Chand vs State Of Haryana on 23 November, 2004

18. No doubt, the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be seen with strictness, yet in view of the judgments of this Court in Narain Dass, v. State of Haryana, 1997 (3) Rec Cri R 311 and Jog Dhian v. State of Haryana, 2001 (2) Rec. Cri R 331, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case i.e. the petitioner has already faced the protracted trial of more than 16 years, he is first offender, was a petty shop-keeper in rural area and was selling the branded non-iodised salt; which was prohibited vide notification just one year prior to the taking of sample and the fact that his case is covered by the second proviso of Section 16 of the Act. I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is let off on probation. The judgment of conviction is therefore maintained and the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be released on probation on his furnishing requisite bonds to show good conduct for a period of one year before the trial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date he receives certified copy of this judgment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document

V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001

5.12.97 and allotments made between 1988 and 1997 in accordance with the principles and guidelines indicated in S.R. Dass case, were protected by applying the principle of prospective application, so far as the judgment in Anil Sabharwals case. We fail to understand how the aforesaid principle can apply to the case in hand where the allotments made prior to the judgment of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation, 1995(3) Supp.(3) S.C.C. 382, are the subject matter of scrutiny and had been made indiscriminately, as there had been no guiding principle for making such allotments. Consequently, the principles evolved in Civil Appeal No. 6840 of 2001, will have no application at all to the present appeals. The said contention, therefore, must fail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 32 - R Pal - Full Document

Foremost Dairies Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 23 October, 1984

In M/s. Narain Dass Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1978 Punj & Har 310 also it was held that the Notification dated March 13, 1973, authorises the State Government to issue orders under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act in relation to Clause (g) of Section 2 thereof. It was also held that it was clear that the Government of Haryana had exercised this power while issuing the Notification dated May 24, 1978. In the first place, the mere omission to mention the Notification dated March 13, 1973, in the impugned Notification is immaterial and will not render it ultra vires and secondly, the specific mention in the impugned Notification that it was being issued in exercise of all powers enabling the Government of Haryana in this behalf to do so will effectively negative the objection.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Sh. Guru Dutt Sharma vs Sh. Som Pal Singh on 4 December, 2019

No. 1412­M of 1991 decided by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16.12.1991; Sain Dass versus The State of Haryana 2010 (1) FAC 17; State of Haryana versus Sat Narain 2003 (2) FAC 378; Khyber Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. versus The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. 2018 (2) FAC 254; Nemi Chand versus State of Rajasthan 2016 (1) FAC 561 and State of Govt of NCT of Delhi versus Jagdish Tyagi 2017(2) FAC 521.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next