Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 96 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Atma Ram vs The State Of Punjab And Others(And ... on 8 December, 1958

Purushothaman Nambudiri vs The State Of Kerala on 5 December, 1961

(a) that the expression 'estates' "shall have the same meaning as that expression has in the existing law relating to land tenures enforce in the area" could be read as permitting the exclusion from the definition of interests which were defined in such a law as 'estates' on the ground that such interests were not those of an intermediary. This Court held that full effect had to be given to these words and that the definition of an 'estate' in a pre-Constitution law relating to land-tenures must determine the content of that expression. It would be seen that the result would have been the same whether the case arose before or after the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Atma Ram v. The State of Punjab (2) proceeds on an identical basis and turned on the definition of an 'estate' in the Punjab Revenue Act 17 of 1887. In this, as in the earlier case in relation to the Bombay Land Revenue Code, there could be no dispute that the enactment was a law in relation to land-tenure. The only question therefore was 828 whether full effect could or ought to be given to the words of the definition, and this was answered in the affirmative. In my opinion, the learned Attorney-General cannot derive any assistance from either of these decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 38 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Pune vs Dr. Kasliwal Medical Care And Research ... on 21 October, 2024

(i) Unlike the decision of the Supreme Court in Chet Ram Vashist (supra) which dealt with the sanctioning of a lay-out plan where an element of public interest is involved, no such public element or public interest is involved and reading a breach of section 12AA(2) as leading to a deemed grant of registration may, "at the worst", cause some loss of revenue to the Department;
Bombay High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

The State Of Haryana Through Secretary ... vs Jai Singh And Ors.Etc. Etc. on 7 April, 2022

“19. Mr. Mittal was pretty vehement in submitting that under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act the price of the entire 61 AIR 1954 Punjab 167 62 AIR 1959 P&H 8; 1958 SCC Online Punj 89 63 ILR (1982) 1 Punjab and Haryana 317 90 essential commodity in contradistinction with a part thereof alone can be fixed. According to him, there is no such thing as a partial control of the price. I see no merit in this submission. If the non-availability of essential commodities, which grows with the passage of time, has to be checked, then the evil must be nipped in the bud. In other words, if the supply position can be improved by taking less drastic action, the State Government should be allowed to take that action instead of allowing the problem to go out of hands. If the interpretation suggested by Mr. Mittal is accepted, then the authorities under the Act, would have to wait till the essential commodities become so costly and scarce as to make absolute control of prices the only imperative. Besides, there is a legal maxim omne majus continet in se minus - the greater contains the less. This maxim has been referred to with approval in Atma Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 519 - If the State Government has the volition and the right to travel the whole distance, I see no reason why it should be commanded to go further if it exercises an option of stopping midway. ..............”
Supreme Court of India Cites 94 - Cited by 19 - H Gupta - Full Document

Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960

rights held by a person. It would be as much modification of janmam rights if such rights held by one person are directed to be held by a number of persons jointly, as when the incidents of such rights are altered. Further our view receives support from two decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay(1) and Atma Ram v. The State of Punjab (2 ). These cases dealt with Acts one of the provisions of which compelled a landlord to sell to his tenant the whole or a portion of the land held by the latter at a price to be fixed in the manner indicated. It was held that though this provision violated Art. 19(1)(f) yet it was saved by Art. 31A. It will be seen that here the incidents of the tenure on which the landlord held the land were not altered. After he had been compelled to transfer the lands to his tenants, he held the remainder on the same terms as before, yet it was held that the Acts compelling the landlord to sell a part of the land held by him were saved by Art. 31A. In our view, therefore, the Act now before us is saved by Art. 31A and it cannot be declared invalid even if it violates the provisions of Arts. 19(1)(f), 14 and 31 (1) of the Constitution. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for us to consider whether the Act in fact violates Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(1) or any of them or is saved by el. (5) of Art. 19.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 246 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Girish Kumar on 30 April, 2010

Having regard to those legal proposition about embarassing choice of the High Court to prefer any one of the judgement which are apparently conflicting each other, I am of the view being armed with judgements of Atma Ram(supra) of Apex Court, Bholanath (supra) Special Bench judgement of Calcutta High Court, Full Bench judgement Indo-Swiss Time Ltd.(supra) of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Full Bench Judgement of Madras High Court in R. Rama Subbarayalu (supra) and the Full Bench decision of Nagpur High Court, D. D. Belimorea(supra) that the judgement passed in Dev Dutt (supra) holding justification of communicability of all ACRs which to be considered at the time of deciding the bench mark by the departmental promotion committee as my preferable choice for its applicability in the instant case on the reasoning that in the Dev Dutt(supra) it was the direct issue addressed and answered by the Apex Court dealing with every pros and cons by relying the larger Bench views of 7 75 Judges Maneka Gandhi(supra).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - P K Ray - Full Document

Sarwan Singh vs State on 17 December, 2020

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ".... We are, however, inclined to think that no blanket proposition can be laid down either in favour of the earlier or the later decision and, as indicated hereinbefore, and as has also been indicated by the Supreme Court in Atma Ram (supra), the subordinate Court would have to prefer one to the other and not necessarily obliged, as a matter, of course, to follow either the former or the later in point of time, but must follow that one, which according to it, is better in point of law. As old may not always be the gold, the new is also not necessarily golden and ringing out the old and bringing in the new cannot always be an invariable straight-jacket formula in determining the binding nature of precedents of co-ordinate jurisdiction."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Dhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next