Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Firm Dayalal Meghji And Co. And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 2 May, 1962

The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd vs The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Iron & ... on 9 February, 2018

He relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Firm - Dayalal Meghji vs State of Madhya Pradesh19 as well as a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shashikant Rai Vs. Regional Transport Authority20. 14 The learned counsel submitted that in any event by Validating Act, a fresh levy with retrospective effect cannot be provided for. He submitted that a Validating enactment should be a curative legislation to remove the deficiency or cause of invalidity and not a fresh legislation imposing levy for the first time. Such levy violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the said Act of 1983 does not permit even by implication retrospective application of bye-laws framed in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the said Act of 1983. 15 The learned counsel submitted that the impugned enactment is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the impugned enactment is repugnant to the said Act of 1983 as Sections 2(2) and 69 are not altered or amended by the impugned enactment.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - A Oka - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Limited vs The Bombay Metropolitan Region Iron & ... on 9 February, 2018

He relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Firm - Dayalal Meghji vs State of Madhya Pradesh19 as well as a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shashikant Rai Vs. Regional Transport Authority20. 14 The learned counsel submitted that in any event by Validating Act, a fresh levy with retrospective effect cannot be provided for. He submitted that a Validating enactment should be a curative legislation to remove the deficiency or cause of invalidity and not a fresh legislation imposing levy for the first time. Such levy violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the said Act of 1983 does not permit even by implication retrospective application of bye-laws framed in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the said Act of 1983. 15 The learned counsel submitted that the impugned enactment is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the impugned enactment is repugnant to the said Act of 1983 as Sections 2(2) and 69 are not altered or amended by the impugned enactment.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 3 May, 1966

Learned Advocate-General also said that from the records of the increase in the imposition made in 1943, 46 and 1947 in Government's possession it appears that as a matter of fact the increases in the rates were made with the previous sanction of the Government; and that this was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court at the time of the hearing of the appeals and the State Government was not a party to those appeals decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment reported in AIR 1964 SC 1013 (supra). It was suggested that the Validating Act was passed because the enhancements in the rates were in fact with the sanction of the Government and the financial position of the Janapada Sabha would have been altogether dislocated if the imposition had not been validated.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Duduwala And Company on 8 April, 1985

17. The validity of an Act amending the Minimum Wages Act which was passed by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature came up for consideration before a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Firm Dayalal Meghji and Co. and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. . It was held in that case that the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961 was a valid piece of legislation as both the principal Act, namely the Central Act and the M.P. Act could co-exist in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishi Upaj Vyavasai Mandal And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. And Anr. on 28 April, 1964

The case of Firm Dayalal Meghji and Co., AIR 1962 Madh Pra 342 (supra) is distinguishable because there the petitioners concentrated their attack on Section 31A, which was inserted in the Principal Act by the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act (23 of 1961). Upon examination, the language employed in that section was not found either apt or sufficient to effectuate the result that was sought to be achieved. It is true that, for validating an Act, the law itself may be retrospectively amended, (1962) 2 SCR 1 : (AIR 1961 SC 1534).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Broach Borough Municipality And Ors. on 10 September, 1966

Therefore, the ground on which the Madhya Pradesh High Court invalidated section 31A was not the ground that the principal Act, under which the executive or the legislative Act had been invalidly done, had not been amended, but it invalidated that Section on the ground that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature had no legislative authority to amend the Central Ac under which the original notifications had been issued. In our judgment the two problems are entirely different. The problem before us does not involve the question of the competence of the Gujarat State Legislature to amend the Boroughs Act. That Legislature having the power to amend the Boroughs Act can always legitimately undertake the validation of any Act purporting to have been done under the Boroughs Act, but, subsequently found to be invalid for some reason With respect, we agree with the ration in Dayalal Meghji's case AIR 1962 Madh Pra 342.
Gujarat High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next