Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing Jagannath Agarwala vs State Of Orissa on 8 March, 1961

Draupadi Devi & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2004

The decision also holds that merely because the issue of recognition of the new rights was pending with the Government, it cannot be postulated that the act of State had come to an end. The act of State could only come to an end if the Government recognises the rights which were granted by the erstwhile Ruler. The Government may take time to consider; and delay does not mitigate against the act of State. [See, Jaganath Agarwala v. State of Orissa (supra)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala on 30 January, 1964

The Act 545 of State could only come to an end if Government recognised the rights flowing from the Tharao. That, Government never did. There was thus no recognition of the Tharao or the rights flowing from it at any time. It was pointed out by this Court in Aggarwala's case(1) that Government may take time to consider and delay does not militate against the Act of State. In that case also the decision of Government was taken after the coming into force of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 60 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

State Of Saurashtra vs Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla And Ors on 3 October, 1961

This statement of the law has' been accepted by this Court in M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2) upon which ;reliance has been placed in State of Saurashtra V. Memon Haji Ismail Haji (3) and recently also in Jagannath Aggarwala v. The State of Orissa (4). Thus even if on the respondents' own showing that the Junagadh territory must be deemed to have been annexed by the Indian Dominion by assuming administration over it and thereupon its residents became citizens of India, they could assert and establish in the municipal courts of the new sovereign only such rights as were recognized by the. Indian Dominion. The respondents claim to be grantees from the Ruler of Junagadh but their grants avail them nothing in the courts of the now sovereign unless they were recognized by that sovereign. The burden of showing that they were so recognized lay on the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 19 - S K Das - Full Document

State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Dr. Karan Singh And Anr. on 30 May, 1997

32. Shri S. S. Ray, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case by virtue of the Accession the territory of Jammu & Kashmir State came within the dominion of India, but this is different from a merger. His legal argument is that when a number of other States came to be merged with the Union of India that concept is different from the concept of Accession. Indeed, he has also produced a copy of White-paper, prepared by the Government of India and submitted that the White-paper is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The concept of the Union of India acting upon the instrument of Accession is different from the one arising out of merger. But the learned counsel has not been able to give any authority on this point. However, we are of the view that regard being had to the nature of territory of the J & K Slate which came to be included within the dominion of India, the consequential result does not make any difference between the concept of Accession and that of merger. If that is so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with such a question in Jagannath Agarwala v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1361. Considering the scope of administration of State of Mayurbhanj's order (1949), C1ause 9(g), referring to the merger of former State into Indian Union and there being a claim against the former State, the said claim having been rejected by the Union of India when the matter came up before the Supreme Court, it lays down the following law :--
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - R C Gandhi - Full Document

M. Madhu Babu vs Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 28 June, 2001

15. For the reasons aforementioned, we accept the contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the present election must be held to be the first election which is being held in the agency area having regard to the fact that A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 has not been extended. The decision, of the apex court in JAGANNATH AGARWALA's case (supra) was rendered absolutely in a different context. Assuming that the word "ordinary" may be held to be applicable where an action had been taken in a majority of cases but the same principles cannot be held to be applicable when the Act itself is not extended by reason of a constitutional mandate. It may be that the election of the ZPTC was held but the same being a nullity, it was non est in the eye of law. The concept of state-wide election must be construed to mean the election held under the statute which in turn would mean that such election is held in respect of the areas to which the Act was applicable. As the agency areas had been excluded by reason of the provisions of the Constitution as noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Promod Chandra Deb And Others vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 16 October, 1961

On an examination of the authorities discussed or referred to above, the following propositions emerge. (1) 'Act of State' is the taking over of sovereign powers by a State in respect of territory which was not till then a part of its territory, either by conquest, treaty or cession, or otherwise, and may be said to have taken place on a particular date, if there is a proclamation or other public declaration of such taking over. (2) But the taking over full sovereign powers may be spread over a number of years, as a result of a historical process.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 47 - B P Sinha - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Dr. R.B. Chandrachud on 19 November, 1968

The main question arising in the appeal is whether the liability the Baroda Government under the Huzur order dated February 8, 1948 devolved upon the successor governments after the merger of the Baroda State on May 1, 1949. The view which currently prevails in this Court is that in cases where the Government of India has acquired the territory of a sovereign Indian State either by conquest, treaty, cession or otherwise the privileges and rights obtained from the predecessor State cannot be enforced by action against the Government of India, see M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax(1) (cession of Jind), pema Chibar v. Union of India(a) (conquest of Daman), nor can it be sued in the municipal courts for the debts 'and contractual liabilities of the predecessor, see jagannath Agarwala v. State of Orissa(3) (Cession of Mayrbhunj), Firm Bansidhar Premsukhdeo v. State of Rajasthan(4) (Bharatpur), unless it has chosen, to recognise the right, privilege, debt or liability by legislation, agreement, or otherwise. The rule extends to the acts of the predecessor State after its accession to the Dominion of India on August 15, 1947 and before its complete merger in the Dominion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

V1Nod Kumar Shantilal Gosalia vs Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors on 26 August, 1981

The decision of the Privy Council in Vajesingji (supra) and the decisions in similar other cases like Secretary of State v. Sardar 407 Rustam Khan were followed by this Court in Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. C.l.T., State of Saurashtra v. Memon Haji Ismail Haji, Jagannath Agarwala v. State of Orissa, State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla, Promod Chandra v. State of Orissa and Pema Chibar v. Union of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 11 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Unknown vs Ranee Surnomoye Dossee; The Privy ...

Reference may be made to M/s Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, AIR 1958 SC 816, The State of Saurashtra v. Menon Haji Ismali Haji, AIR 1959 SC 1383, Jaganath Agarwala v. State of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 1361 and State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamed Abdulla and others, AIR 1965 SC 445. In these cases of this Court, it has been laid down that the essence of an Act of State is an arbitrary exercise of sovereign power on principles which are paramount to the Municipal Law, against an alien and the exercise of the power is neither intended nor purports to be legally founded. A defence that the injury is by an Act of State does not seek justification for the Act by reference to any law, but questions the jurisdiction of the court to decide upon the legality or justice of the action. The Act of State comes to an end only when the new sovereign recognises either expressly or impliedly the rights of the aliens. It does not 3309 come to an end by any action of subordinate officers who have no authority to bind the new sovereign. Till recognition, either express or implied, is granted by the new sovereign, the Act of State continues."
Allahabad High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next