Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Hasan Nurani Malak vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, ... on 22 August, 1966

State Of Tamil Nadu vs P.Saravanan on 3 October, 2019

16. The words “anything duly done or suffered thereunder” used in clause (b) of Section 6 are often used by the legislature in saving clause which is intended to provide that unless a different intention appears, the repeal of an Act would not affect anything duly done or suffered thereunder. This Court in Hasan Nurani Malak v. S.M. Ismail, Asstt. Charity Commr., Nagpur [AIR 1967 SC 1742] has held that the object of such a saving clause is to save what has been previously done under the statute repealed. The result of such a saving clause is that the pre-existing law continues to govern the things done before a particular date from which the repeal of such a pre-existing law takes effect.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Abdul Wahab vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 16 September, 2021

15. On a consideration of the provisions of Section 6, what we could gather is that, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the aspects contained under Section 6 of Act, 1897 . Since the Electricity Supply Code, 2014, is a State enactment, Section 4 of the Kerala Interpretation and General Clause Act, 1125 would apply. Section 4 thereto deals with the effect of repeal which is in pari materia with Section 6 of the Central Act. Learned Counsel has also invited our attention to the following judgments of the Apex Court, Hasan Nurani Malik v. S.M.Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Others AIR 1967 SC 1742, Jayantilal Amratlal v. Union of India and Others 1972 (4) SCC 174, Gupta M.C. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, RP NO. 543 OF 2021 -25- Dehradun 2012(8) SCC 669, Fibre Boards (M/s) (P) Ltd, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore 2015 (10) SCC 333 and Union of India and Others v. T.R.Mehra 2020 (15) SCC 125.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S P Chaly - Full Document

No.2 Tilak Marg G.H.Flat Buyers ... vs M/S Ravindra Properties P. Ltd. & Anr. on 15 September, 2023

In this connection the learned counsel also placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 and C.A. Rowjee vs The State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 962 and Hasan Nurani Malak vs S.M. Ismail, Assistance Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, AIR 1967 SC 1742. We, however, find no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel. In fact in terms of the Building Bye-laws applicable to NDMC read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Authority regarding land use as per Master Plan/Zonal Plan is required to be submitted by the petitioner. Further under section 41(1) of the said Act the Delhi Development Authority is bound to carry out any directions issued by the Central Government. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, the NDMC could not sanction the building plans of the petitioner after the Government of India took the decision dated 17th October, 1985.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Ravindra Properties Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 April, 1992

In support of his contention the learned counsel referred to two Supreme Court Judgments reported in Hasan Jurani Malak vs. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, and M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, . In reply Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned counsel for respondents No. I and 2 submitted that the doctrine of promisory estoppel does not operate at the level of Government Policy.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amiruddin And Other vs Mukhtar Jafarbhai Maulana Hasanali ... on 6 March, 1992

9. The said Maulana H. N. Malak Saheb then carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of an appeal by special leave registered as C.A. No. 498/1964. The Supreme Court by its judgment in the said appeal Hasan Nurani v. Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Nagpur set aside the judgment of this Court as well as of the Assistant Charity Commissioner holding that it was incumbent upon the Registrar under the M.P. Act, to take a negative entry in the register of public trust as provided in Section 7 of the said Act pursuant to his finding recorded by him on 11-11-1955 under section 6 of the said Act in the inquiry made by him in the same matter under section 5 of the said Act. It further held that in the absence of such an entry being recorded in the register of public trust the enquiry was incomplete and the proceedings remained pending under the M.P. Act. As such the Supreme Court held that the application of one Aziz and others under section 19 of the Bombay Act for registration of the trust alleged to be created under the deed of settlement dated 9-6-1894 (Ex. 554) as a public trust under the Bombay Act was not maintainable and hence it dismissed the said application. It is material to see that in view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court such a negative entry was taken in the register of public trust as per the order of the Collector dated 27-3-67, passed in R.C. No. 7/B-109/66-67.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chitti Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 1995

Clause (b) clearly lays down that the repeal will not affect "anything duly done or suffered thereunder". The object and amplitude of such a clause arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in HASAN NURANI MALAK v. S.M. ISMAIL, ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR AND ORS . In that case the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act was previously applicable to the area of Vidharba and subsequently Bombay Public Trust Act was made applicable to that area. While the Madhya Pradesh Act of 1951 stood repealed by the Bombay Act, so far as it applied to Vidharba, there was a saving clause which provided that the repeal or cessation of the Act shall not in any way affect anything duly done or suffered under the laws thereby repealed or ceasing to apply before the said date. There were other saving clauses similar to Clauses (c) to (e) of the KGC Act. The question which arose for consideration was whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under the Bombay Public Trust Act had jurisdiction to hold enquiry under the Bombay Act in spite of a previous finding recorded under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Act to the effect that the Trust in question was not a public trust. The Supreme Court interpreting the words "anything duly done" at para 10 has held as hereunder:
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next