Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (4.58 seconds)
Documents citing Director Of Rationing And Distribution vs The Corporation Of Calcutta And Others on 16 August, 1960

Superintendent & Legal ... vs Corporation Of Calcutta on 7 December, 1966

The relevant facts are simple and are not in dispute. The State of West Bengal was carrying on the trade of a daily market at 1, Orphanganj Road, Calcutta, without obtaining a licence as required under s. 218 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (West Bengal Act 33 of 1951) hereinafter called the Act. The Corporation of Calcutta filed a complaint against the State of West Bengal in the Court of the Presidency and Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, under s. 541 of the Act for contravening the provisions of s. 218 thereof. Under s. 218 of the Act, every person who exercises or carries on in Calcutta any trade, shall take out a licence and shall pay for the same such fee as is mentioned in that behalf in Schedule IV to the Act. Admittedly for the year 1960-61, the Government of West Bengal did not take out a licence under the said section but carried on the said trade. The main contention of the Government was that the State was not bound by the pro- visions of the Act. The learned Magistrate, accepting the said contention, acquitted the State. On appeal, the High Court of Calcutta held that the State was carrying on the business of running a market and, therefore, it was as much bound as a private citizen to take out a licence. It distinguished the decision of this Court in Director of Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta(1) on the ground that the said decision was concerned with the sovereign activity of the State. In the result the State of West Bengal was convicted under s. 537 of the Act-s. 537 appears to be a mistake for s. 541-and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250, with the direction that when realized, it should be paid to the Corporation. Hence the present appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 70 - K S Rao - Full Document

The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... vs T.M. Oosman Haji And Co., Timber ... on 6 January, 1969

It is true that in so far as this decision relies on Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corporation of Calcutta ., the authority has been shaken by the subsequent decisions referred to above. But the interpretation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 given in that case supports the contention of the learned Government Pleader.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Youth Welfare Federation Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Its ... on 9 October, 1996

V.S.R. & Oil Mills v. State of A.P. (28 supra), though referred to Director of R & D's case(supra), but did not specifically deal with this question. It is from this to be considered whether all non-statutory laws applied and administered by the Courts in India prior to the commencement of the Constitution, including the personal laws, not only owe their continuance, after the commencement of the Constitution, to Article 372 but also become subject to the disqualification under Article 13(1).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 95 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962

There is no definition of the expression "person" in the Constitution; but it is defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897, as including any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Though this definition is an enlargement of the natural meaning of the expression "person", even the extended meaning does not include the State. Anyhow the question whether the said expression takes in a corporation or not, does not call for a decision in this case. 'In this context two decisions of this Court may usefully be referred to. In Director of Rationing and Distribution v. The Corporation of Calcutta (1), it was held that "'the rule of interpretation of statutes that the State is not bound by a statute unless it is so provided in express terms, or by necessary implication, is still good law". Though that rule has been laid down in the context of a statute, there is no reason why a different principle should apply in the construction of the Articles of the Constitution. If that rule of interpretation is applied to Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution, it will have to be held that, as the said rule does not in terms or by necessary implication provide for the acquisition of State property, a State property cannot be the subject-matter of the said rule.
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 316 - B P Sinha - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd.And ... on 15 November, 1963

We consider that the principle here explained should also be deemed to have been approved of and accepted by this Court in the Director of Rationing case") In another passage in the same judgment Lord du Parcq explained the scope and ambit of the rule which have in terms relevance to the question arising in these appeals. The learned Lord said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 39 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Sri. K.Somanath Nayak vs Sri. D.Veerendra Heggade on 5 May, 2022

person it was urged was at the best a neutral expression, which in the absence of compelling indication, was not apt to include " a State " and particularly so in the light of the rule of Construction approved by this Court in The Director of Rationing V. Corporation of Calcutta (1). It was further pressed upon us that the construction suggested would not render injunction orders passed on the State when it was a defendant brutum fulmen, because, the State as a juristic person could act only through human agency and there would always be some 42 officer-a natural " person guilty of disobedience " in every case where orders passed against a State were disobeyed. We are clearly of the opinion that the entire argument should be rejected.
Karnataka High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jubbi And Dunia, Etc on 5 September, 1967

In Director of Rationing v. The Corporation of Calcutta(1) the majority judgment held that the law applicable to India ':before the Constitution was as authoritatively laid down in the Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corp. of Bombay(2 ) that the Constitution has not made any change in the legal position and that on the other hand it has clearly indicated that the laws in force before January 26, 1950, shall continue to have validity even in the new set up except in so far as they were in conflict with the express provisions of the Constitution. The majority also held that the rule of interpretation of statutes that the State was not bound by a statute unless it so provided in express terms or by necessary implication was still good law. Wanchoo J. (as he then was) in his dissenting opinion, however, held that the rule of construction which was based on the royal prerogative as known to the common law of England could not be applied to India now that there was no crown in India and when the common law ,of England was not applicable and that therefore the State was bound by a statute unless it was exempted expressly or by necessary implication. The rule in that decision is no longer good law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 13 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next