Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 125 (5.51 seconds)
Documents citing Ajoy Kumar Banerjee & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 21 March, 1984

K.Rajkumar vs State By Inspector Of Police on 19 July, 2019

11.The learned Special Public Prosecutor would rely on decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 1130 (Ajay Kumar Banerjee Vs. Union of India) and an unreported judgement of the Kerala High Court, dated 7.1.2014, made in WP(C)No.26520 of 2012 and refer to the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971, General Insurance Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 1985, General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Amendment Act, 2002 (March 21, 2003), New India Assurance Company Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2003, which came into force by the Resolution of the Board and New India Assurance Company Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2014. and also the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A D Chandira - Full Document

Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy And ...

(xxii)We deem it appropriate to also give in one paragraph all the judgments placed before us by TRAI with regard to principles of interpretation of statutes and they are : Bhatia International Vs. Bulk Trading S.A. and another [(2002) 4 SCC 105]; Girdhari Lal and sons Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and others [(1986) 2 SCC 237]; KSL and Industries Limited Vs. Arihant Threads Limited and others [(2015) 1 SCC 166]; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shiv Shanker [1971 (1) SCC 442]; Kishorebhai Khamanchand Goyal Vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2003) 12 SCC 274]; and Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and others Vs. Union of India and others [(1984) 3 SCC 127].
Madras High Court Cites 175 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

The Pharmacy Council Of India vs Dr.S.K.Toshniwal Educational Trusts ... on 5 March, 2020

It is further submitted that as held by this Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127, the later law will prevail. It is submitted that therefore the AICTE Act, which is a later Act, shall prevail over the Pharmacy Act. 6.8 That Article 372 of the Constitution provides that notwithstanding the repeal by the Constitution of the enactments referred to in Article 395, all the laws that were in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue to remain in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Parliament under Entry-66 of List-I (Union List). It is submitted that AICTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament under the Union List, which covers the same field which was earlier covered by the 1948 Act, namely, to lay down norms and standards for studies in the field of pharmacy. It is submitted that therefore in terms of Article 372 of the Constitution, the 1987 Act to the extent it covers the same field as covered by the existing law i.e. 1948 Act, will prevail and the provisions of the 1948 Act to that extent stand repealed/altered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 72 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next