Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Bennet Coleman And Co. And Mauli Chand ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 March, 1973

Vardhaman Publishers Limited, ... vs Mathrubhumi Printing And Publishing ... on 27 August, 1990

62. A copy of the report of the Vivian Bose Commission was made available to the court. No member of the present management was subject to scrutiny by the Vivian Bose Commission. No member of the present management was subject to scrutiny by the Bombay High Court except Sri Narendrakumar, who was accepted as a director by that court. The Bombay High Court order proceeded on the footing that none of the charges made in the petition before that court against the then management were admitted (See Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1977] 47 Comp Cas 92 (Bom)). Therefore, it is clear that the statement in the resolution that a commission of enquiry was appointed in 1956 to enquire into the alleged malpractices of the group which is now controlling the company is factually incorrect. The allegations against the former directors which itself was not established before the Bombay High Court cannot be a ground for holding that the present directors can be termed as undesirable on account of those allegations. So this ground can be termed as non-existent and not relevant. It is raised as a result of misreading of the materials. No reasonable man will come to the conclusion arrived at by the board of directors on the materials considered by the board.
Kerala High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Indian Trawlers Association, ... vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 February, 1992

14A. There is no discrimination involved in this case and the petitioners have not been taxed in a dual capacity. The contribution payable is fixed on the basis of the income earned and hence the basis for levy is also reasonable. The legislation comes as a welfare measure and it is not a tax or a fee. Hence, there is no need to justify the same with quid pro quo qr under any taxing entry. The Act can be justified under entries 20, 23 and 24 of List HI of the VII Schedule of the, Constitution. Even though the Additional Advocate General elaborated the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court under Article 31C of the Constitution with reference to Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company's case (supra), Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789, Kcsavananda v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461, Waman Rao v. Union of India, 1980(3) SCC 587 : (AIR 1981 SC 271), Unni Mammu Haji v. State of Kerala, 1989 (1) KIT 729 : (1989 Lab 1C 2093), Excel Glasses Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1992(1) KLT 121, Elizabeth v. State of Kerala, 1991 (l| KLT 475, I am not elaborating on this aspect as it has already been explained by me. He also referred to the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Abu Kayur Bai (AIR 1984 SC 326 para 23) to emphasise the point that there is a reasonable connection between the Act and the objects mentioned in Article 39(b) and (c) for applying the protection under Article31-C of the Constitution. But as already explained, the Act can be saved even without the protective unbrella of Article 3,1- C of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indian Trawelers Association vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 1992

22. In the counter affidavit, it is stated specifically that the Act covers all fishermen and the fishermen employed by the petitioners/ appellants also are covered for the purpose of the benefits of fund and the benefits conferred on the fishermen under the Act, will, in due course, benefit the fishermen employed by the appellants and also appellants. Before the learned single Judge, counsel referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India) and AIR 1973 SC 106 (Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Union of India) and submitted that the effect of the impugned Act has to be considered whatever be the form in which the Act is made, whether the impact of the Act would contravene any of the fundamental rights of the citizen. This aspect of the matter also has been convincingly considered by the learned single Judge. This contention was raised again before us to reinforce the argument that the Act is one imposing a levy of fee or tax. The learned single Judge observed thus: "Whether the pith and substance of the Act is taken, or the direct impact of the law is examined, it cannot be considered that it imposes a tax or a fee. It cannot be a tax as there is no levy under the impugned Act for a general purpose. No characteristics of a tax is present. The benefit conferred under the Act is only to subserve the common good of the fishing industry. Since the petitioners are also benefited by the hard labour of the fishermen, they also have a liability to pay contribution."
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rohini Srivastava W/O Late Shyam ... vs Director, Pension Directorate And ... on 3 August, 2004

17. The executive Power of the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution extends to all matters with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws and accordingly the State Government can act in exercise of executive power in relation to any matter with respect to which the State Legislature has power to make laws, even if there is no legislation to support such executive action, but such executive section must not infringe the right of any person. If the executive action taken by the State Government encroaches upon any private rights, it would have to support by the legislative authority for under the rule of law which prevails in our country, every executive action which operates to the prejudice of any person must have authority of law to support it. (Raj Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab ; Bernet Coleman and Company v. Union of India ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170, Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P. ; Dr. Ram Ji Dwidi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1982 Lab & 1C 1130 (Alld.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - R B Misra - Full Document

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Bombay And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 23 January, 1986

Further in State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Milla, , Mathew, J., referring to the Bank Nationalisaton case and also Bennet Colema v. Union of India, held that as a general rule a corporatin is not a citizen for the purpose of Art. 19 and has therefore no fundamental right under that Article. However, the Court proceeded to examine the claim that even without the fundamental rights, an infringement of an ordinary right of every citizen in the country would be sufficient to invoke the pwoer under Art. 226 of the Consitution. Hence we are inclined to accpet the objection on behalf of the State in this regard.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next