Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 182 (4.00 seconds)
Documents citing Dattatraya Govind Mahajan & Ors. Etc vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 January, 1977

State Of Bihar vs K.M. Zuberi And Ors. on 15 November, 1985

20. It must, therefore, be inevitably held that in both wrongly importing and resting itself on an Explanation to Section 2(g), which non-existence (was non-existent?) because of its retrospective repeat, and the failure to notice Explanation II to Section 2(ee), the Full Bench judgment has been rendered per incuriam and cannot be supported. This apart, the material legislative history of the provisions and the structural changes shifting the foundation of ceiling laws from the individual landholder to the concept of the statutory family holding went wholly unnoticed. Equally, the corresponding changes in Section 4and 5, which were both relevant and material, were not even adverted to the earlier judgments of the Final Court in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915 and Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 2097 were not cited before the Division Bench.
Patna High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Tulsi Co-Operative Housing Society ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By The Secretary, ... on 21 November, 1992

28. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, the learned Government Pleader says that if the acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act are allowed to proceed unimpeded the Government would be compelled to pay higher compensation thereby public funds which would otherwise be available for welfare activities would be cornered by the land owners. We would have agreed with this contention had the fact situation been really so. The compensation amount is not coming from public funds. It was already deposited by the 374 members of the Bagh Amberpet Welfare Association more than a decade ago. Shree Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for the Bagh Amberpet Welfare Association says that in order to put an end to further litigation from the side of the land onwers his clients are aggreeable to the land owners receiving the amount that is now in deposit. He also says that considering the fact that the compensation amount is calculated at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard with reference to the date of 4(1) notification in 1975 for the land which is situate in the heart of the city, the compensation amount is very just and reasonable. We are inclined to agree. The litigation has been going on uninterruptedly for more than 12 years. 374 families belonging to economically weaker sections, low and middle income groups are struggling for over seventeen years to have dwelling units of their own. The compensation amount is not coming from public funds. The purpose of acquisition apart from being a public purpose is also a laudable one in tune with the basic philosophy underlying the U.L.C. Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarwan Kumar Jhabarmal Choudhary vs Sachin Shyamsundar Begrajka on 16 October, 2025

Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 2 SCC 548 "9. ...It is true that the orthodox function of an explanation is to explain the meaning and effect of the main provision to which it is an explanation and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in it. But ultimately it is the intention of the legislature which is paramount and mere use of a label cannot control or deflect such intention. It must be remembered that the legislature has different ways of expressing itself and in the last analysis the words used by the legislature alone are the true repository of the intent of the legislature and they must be construed having regard to the context and setting in which they occur. Therefore, even though the provision in question has been called an Explanation, we must construe it according to its plain language and not on any a priori considerations...."
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - M S Karnik - Full Document

Katira Construction Ltd vs Union Of India &

(1961) 1 SCR 902, that the explanation was meant to explain the Article and must be interpreted accordinging to its own tenor and it was an error to explain the Explanation with the aid of the Article to which it was annexed. We have to remember what was held in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915 (928): (1977) 2 SCR 790, that mere description of a certain provision, such as "Explanation"
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next