Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Gobardhan Joshi And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 18 March, 1955

Express Auto Service (P) Ltd., Prayag ... vs State Of Bihar on 30 April, 1969

This clearly shows that there is a power of revision with the State Govt. and the Minister as such had the power of passing an order under Section 64A as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act, I may also refer here to a decision of this Court in Gobardhan Joshi and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1956 B.L.J.R. 498 where the vires of Section 64A of the Bihar Amendment was challenged and it was held that it cannot be said that Section 64A creates an unreasonable restriction and, therefore, it is not constitutionally void or ultra vires. This point is, therefore, also thus decided.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M. Krishna Muniswamy Pillai vs State Of Mysore And Ors. on 21 July, 1958

It should also be mentioned that their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the said case , relied on a decision of the same High Court in Gobardhan Joshi v. The State of Bihar , as supporting their view. We have been taken through the said decision reported in the said case , but we are unable to find anything in the said case which goes to support the view taken by their Lordships of the Patna High Court in the said case of . Mr. Krishnamurthi also could not point out to us anything from the said case supporting his view on this point.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Oli vs Unknown on 5 December, 1975

In Gobardhan v. State and Ram-karan Singh v. The Emperor AIR 1935 Nag 13 : 86 Cri LJ 511, it was held that an Excise Inspector can give expert opinion on illicit liquor but the court should under Section 51 of the Evidence Act ascertain the grounds on which his opinion is based so as to test it. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Chand Batra v. State of Uttar Pradesh , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after referring to the principles laid down in Boosenna's case have observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramnihora Thakur vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 3 September, 1957

In this state of the facts we think that the Appellate Board had no authority in an appeal preferred by opposite party No. 4 under Section 64(a) to cancel the permit of the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur. The Appellate Board had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and it is necessary, in our opinion, that this portion of the order of the Appellate Board dated the 13th of December, 1955, should be cancelled. The view we have taken is supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Nadar Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 1 (A), a decision of the Patna High Court in Gobardhan Joshi v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat 340 (B), and two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in Dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multi purpose Union Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan AIR 1955 Raj 19 at page 26 (C), and J. G. Singh Transport, Shahpura v. State Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Raj 99 (D).
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1