Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (3.71 seconds)
Documents citing Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Kerala State Electricity Board And Ors. on 19 August, 1971

Indian Aluminum Company Etc vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 23 July, 1975

The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are in material respects identical with those in Indian Aluminum Company v. KeraIa Stat Electricity Board(1) which we have disposed of by a judgment delivered this morning The judgment in Indian Aluminum Company v. Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) will, therefore. govern the decision of the present appeal as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 88 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Exide Industries Ltd. on 24 April, 2020

This will include removal of the defect in a statute pointed out in the judgment in question, as well as alteration or substitution of provisions of the enactment on which such judgment is based, with retrospective effect.”” 19 (1997) 1 SCC 326 36 In Indian Aluminium Co. (supra), the Court relied upon a set of authorities and extended its approval to the above stated position of law thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 83 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Hanamant Siddappa Bajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2020

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Cauvery Disputes Tribunal reported in 1993 SUPP(1) SCC 96(II) and in case of Indian Aluminium Company and Others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1996) 7 SCC 637, the legislature is incompetent to overrule the decision of the Court without properly removing the base on which the judgment is found. The impugned Act No.4 of 2015 is enacted by the State legislature in exercise of its plenary power is sought to be dependent on the ground that it causes financial burden to the State. The State legislature by incorporating Rule 3 in the impugned Act No.4 of 2015, has sought for cancellation of sanction of additional increment and thereby in the said Rule 3 have clearly stated that 47 any judgment or decree or order of any Court would stand extinguished.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs State Of Kerala . on 7 May, 2014

In order that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the respective sovereign 50 Indian Aluminium Company and Others v. State of Kerala and Others; [(1996) 7 SCC 637] 6 8 functionaries need free play in their joints so that the march of social progress and order remains unimpeded. The smooth balance built with delicacy must always be maintained;
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Raj Singh Gehlot vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 2 March, 2022

(R) Reference was made to the decisions in M/s Ujagar Prints and Others (II) v. Union of India and Others reported as (1989) 3 SCC 488 and Indian Aluminium Co. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others reported as (1996) 7 SCC 637 to submit that an amendment cannot validate a law which was previously declared invalid without remedying the infirmities that led to its invalidation.
Delhi High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 3 - M K Ohri - Full Document

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2022

(lxxiv) It is submitted that, concededly, a law which is struck down by the Court due to legislative incompetence can never be made operative by the logic of curing the defect. However, if a law has been struck down by the Court as being violative of Part III of the Constitution, then the Legislature has the power to cure the reason or defect which persuaded the Constitutional Court to hold it to be violative of Part III of the Constitution and, thereafter, the provision will be back in its full force, as the declaration by the Constitutional Court of the provision being unconstitutional mainly results in making the provision inoperative and unenforceable while the provision remains on the statute book. To buttress this submission reliance has been placed on Patel Gordhandas Hargovindas & 297 Supra at Footnote No. 3 298 Supra at Footnote No. 3 164 Ors. vs. The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr.299, Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr. vs. Broach Borough Municipality & Ors.300, Bhubaneshwar Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.301, Comorin Match Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of T.N.302, Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.303, Bakhtawar Trust & Ors. vs. M.D. Narayan & Ors.304, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Narain Singh305, Goa Foundation & Anr. vs. State of Goa & Anr.306 and Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana & Ors.307.
Supreme Court of India Cites 580 - Cited by 293 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next