Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (1.61 seconds)
Documents citing The Custodian Of Evacuee ... vs Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, Etc on 20 February, 1961

D. Chelliah Nadar And Anr. vs G. Lalita Bai And Anr. on 21 July, 1976

The decisions of the Supreme Court make it clear that the law repealed should substantially provide for the same matters as the Central Act even though it may not be identical in all respects, and that it must cover the entire field which was covered by the law which was sought to be repealed Applying the principle laid down in the three decisions of the Supreme Court, viz., Custodian of Evacuee Properties v. Abdul Shakoor, , Abdulkadir v. State of Kerala.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Kanchhedi Lal vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 8 August, 2007

In these case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. , a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court after referring to the established principles relating to the constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227- of the Constitution of India and after referring to the basic spectrum inhered in writ of certiorari and further referring to the decisions rendered in Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - D Misra - Full Document

Pankajakshi(Dead) Through L.Rs. vs Chandrika . on 15 February, 2016

14. Applying the test laid down by the aforesaid decisions of this Court, namely, that the subject matter of the two statutes must essentially be the same and/or that the main object and purpose of the statutes should be substantially similar, we find that the 20 Travancore-Cochin High Court Act formed the Charter for jurisdiction to be exercised by the said High Court. This jurisdiction is exercised not only in civil matters but criminal and other matters as well. The main object and purpose of the Travancore-Cochin Act is to lay down the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court that was established in the said State. On the other hand, the subject matter of the Code of Civil Procedure is to lay down procedure in all civil matters, and no others. Also, the said Code would apply to all courts which deal with civil matters, subject to the exceptions contained therein, and not only the High Court. For this reason, it is difficult to say that the Code of Civil Procedure corresponds to the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 100 - Cited by 0 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Amarjeet vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue ... on 10 February, 2021

40. The court observed that in the judgement rendered by it in Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore versus Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor 1961 (3) SCR 855, it was held that where two Acts dealt with Evacuee property, the fact that the scheme under the second Act was different from the first, would make no difference as the subject matter that was dealt with was in substance the same. Applying the said law the Court observed that firstly the subject matter of the two Statutes must essentially be the same and/or that the main object and purpose of the Statutes should be substantially similar for the later law to be referred to as the "corresponding" statute.
Allahabad High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - S Chandra - Full Document

M. Hariya Naik, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 March, 2021

Article 226 of the Constitution of India preserves to the High Court power to issue writ of certiorari amongst others. The principles on which the writ of certiorari is issued are well-settled. The Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors25 laid down four propositions and summarized the principles of the Constitution Bench in The Custodian of Evacuee 25 (1955) 1 SCR 1104 MSM,J WP_13969_2020 35 Property Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc26 as under:-
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Chaitanya Jyothi Social Welfare ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 December, 2019

Article 226 of the Constitution of India preserves to the High Court power to issue writ of certiorari amongst others. The principles on which the writ of certiorari is issued are well-settled. The Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors2 laid down four propositions and summarized the principles of the Constitution Bench in The Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc3 as under:-
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr on 16 July, 2021

In case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra), the learned Single Judge has given consideration to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 233, The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore (in all the appeals) Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc., AIR 1961 SC 1087, T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa & Anr., AIR 1954 SC 440, Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1, Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala & Ors, AIR 1961 SC 1669, Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2010) 11 SCC 1, Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423, Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 461 and it was held in paragraph No. 18 and 19, which are as follows :-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - R C Samant - Full Document

Sunil Tawari vs Janak Ram Kurre on 16 July, 2021

In case of Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi (Supra), the learned Single Judge has given consideration to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 233, The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore (in all the appeals) Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc., AIR 1961 SC 1087, T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa & Anr., AIR 1954 SC 440, Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1, Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala & Ors, AIR 1961 SC 1669, Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2010) 11 SCC 1, Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423, Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 461 and it was held in paragraph No. 18 and 19, which are as follows :-
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 4 - R C Samant - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next