Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Lilavati Bai vs The State Of Bombay on 5 March, 1957

The Management Of Indian Bank vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 3 October, 1989

18. The Division Bench took the view that Sinha. J. in Lilavathi Bai v. The State of Bombay (1957) S.C.R. 721 referred to the distinction between the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide a certain fact as one of the issues in the controversy and the collateral fact on which the jurisdiction to determine the controversy arose. We have our own doubts on the correctness of the decision of the Bench. When the very same question has been held by the Supreme Court to be one of fact and it is held that a finding thereon cannot be interfered under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we wonder how a contrary view can be taken by this Court. However, it is not necessary for us to consider the matter any further in this case as we have come to the same conclusion as the Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence on record.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 15 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

Babu Barkya Thakur vs The State Of Bombay And Others on 8 August, 1960

The other attack under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution is equally futile in view of the decisions of this Court in State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and Another (1) and Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay (2). Nothing was said with reference to the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution, though that Article has been referred to in the grounds in support of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 153 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Karan Luthra & Anr vs Registrar Of Companies Nct Of Delhi & ... on 29 November, 2022

denotes that even if the company was not carrying on any business or was not in operation at the time of striking off, it is still open to the company court to order restoration if it appears to the Court to be "otherwise just". I may add that the words "or otherwise" have not been generally construed ejusdem generis as seen from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lilawati Bai Vs State of Bombay : (AIR 1957 SC 521) and Kavallappara Kottarathil Kochuni V. State of Madras : (AIR 1960 SC 1080).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sajjansingh vs The State Of Raj. And Two Ors. on 20 January, 1979

In this context reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay . In that case the Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948, which was a law protected by Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution, had been amended by Bombay Acts No. 2 and 39 of 1950 which had not received the assent of the President and the validity of the amending Acts was challenged on the ground that the provision of Article 31(3) of the Constitution had been contravened The Bombay Act No. 2 of 1950 extended the life of the parent Act by two years & by the Bombay Act No. 39 1950 the wards "the purpose of the State or any other public purpose" were substituted for the words "any purpose" in Section 5 of the parent Act. The Supreme Court held that the aforesaid amending Acts ware merely an extension or explanatory of the substantive Act and were not such laws as come within the purview of Clause (3) of Article 31 of the Constitution. Similarly it can be said that the amendments made by the 1978 Act in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 are of such a nature that the 1978 Act does not come within the purview of Article 31(3) of the Constitution. I, therefore, hold that the provisions of the 1978 Act whereby Sub-section (2) of Section 15 has been substituted cannot be regarded as a law providing for acquisition of properly & therefore, the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Constitution have no application to the said legislation & the said legislation cannot be attacked on the ground that it required the assent of the President under Article 31(3) and that in the absence of the said assent it is void and inoperative.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Patel Mangalbhai Nathabhai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat, Revenue And ... on 12 December, 1963

In support of his contention, the learned Advocate-General relied upon Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203, where the Supreme Court in the last but one paragraph of its judgment, at page 1208 has observed that the attack, against acquisition in that case under Article 19(1)(f) was futile in view of the decision in Bhanji Munji's case, (S) AIR 1955 SC 41 and in Lilavati Bal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521.
Gujarat High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sm. Kamala Bala Dassi And Ors. vs State Of West Bengal Through The Secy. ... on 31 January, 1961

In repelling the contention that the land acquisition proceedings violated the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, the learned Chief Justice relied on and followed Bhanji Munji's case, (S) and the case of. Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay which has direct bearing on the question, whether Article 31(2) of the Constitution excludes the operation of Article 19(1)(f). Although the observations of the learned Chief Justice are very cryptic on the point, there can be hardly any room for doubt that Sinha, C. J. intended to hold that a legislation dealing with acquisition or requisition I as contemplated by Article 31(2) read with (2A) has the effect of excluding the operation of Article 19(1)(f). If paragraphs 6 (page 1205), 10 (page 1206) and 13 (page 1208) are read together that appears to. be the nett effect of the decision.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The Khardah Company Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade ... on 24 February, 1975

18. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Lilavati v. State of Bombay A.I.R 1957 S.C. 521, which laid down that the word "otherwise" in Section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, had not been used ejusdem generis. But at the same time the word "otherwise" in Section 14(v) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, must be construed in the context in which it appears. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1959), Volume I, gives the meaning of the word "bale" as a "large bundle or package, orig. more or less round in shape; now spec. one closely pressed, done up in canvas, etc., and corded or hooped, for transportation". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume II, gives the meaning of the word "otherwise" as "in other manner". Thus in the context of Clause (v) "otherwise" means the jute fibre carried or transported in any other way distinct or different from bale. The word "otherwise" in juxtaposition with "baled" is referable to the state or conditions of package. Therefore, the expression "baled" or "otherwise" is referable to the different manner in which jute fibres may be packed for carriage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chayarani Mukherjee vs Assistant Secretary To The Government ... on 26 March, 1964

He observed that the decision in Satyanarayan Nathani's case, on this particular point cannot be regarded as good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lilavati's case, (S) . We agree with the observation, of Bose J., as he then was, on this point we hold that West Bengal Act 5 of 1947 in spite of the extensions of its life and the substantial amendments made therein by the subsequent Acts, is an existing law covered by Clause 5 of Article 31. We are, therefore, unable to interpret this Act in the light of the constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 31(2) of the Constitution and on that basis to hold that the existence of a public purpose is justiciable and that the opinion of the Government in this behalf is not final.
Calcutta High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next