Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 354 (4.37 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1962

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2024

91. Drawing upon the rationale established in the State of West Bengal v. Union of India case mentioned supra, this court finds that these writ petitions clearly fall within the ambit of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The dispute involves a legal question concerning the extent of the Central Government's authority to deploy the CBI within a State, that has withdrawn its consent. The resolution of this dispute will directly impact the legal rights and jurisdiction of both the Central and State
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

Commissioner (Food Safety), Gnctd vs Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 April, 2023

This would be doing violence to the art of legislative draftsmanship. It is open to Parliament in view of Entry 52 List I, to make a declaration in LPA 742/2022 & LPA 748/2022 Page 120 of 176 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:10.04.2023 15:59:42 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2375-DB respect of industry or industries to the effect that the Union will assume its control in public interest. It is not to be some abstract control. The control has to be concrete and specific and the manner of its exercise has to be laid down in view of the well established proposition that executive authority must have the support of law for its action. In a country governed by rule of law, if the Union, an instrumentality for the governance of the country, has to exercise control over industries by virtue of a declaration made by Parliament, it must be exercised by law. Such law must prescribe the extent of control, the manner of its exercise and enforcement and consequence of breach. There is no such concept as abstract control. The control has to be concrete and the mode and method of its exercise must be regulated by law. Now, Parliament made the declaration not in abstract but as part of the IDR Act and the control was in respect of industries specified in the First Schedule appended to the Act itself. Sections 3 to 30 set out various modes and methodology, procedure and power to effectuate the control which the Union acquired by virtue of the declaration contained in Section 2. Industry as a legislative head finds its place in Entry 24 List II. The State Legislature can be denied legislative power under Entry 24 to the extent Parliament makes declaration under Entry 52 and by such declaration, Parliament acquires power to legislate only in respect of those industries in respect of which declaration is made and to the extent as manifested by legislation incorporating the declaration and no more. The Act prescribes the extent of control and specifies it. As the declaration trenches upon the State legislative power it has to be construed strictly. Therefore, even though the Act enacted under Entry 54 which is to some extent in pari materia with Entry 52 and in a parallel and cognate statute while making the declaration Parliament did use the further expression ―to the extent herein provided‖ while assuming control, the absence of such words in the declaration in Section 2 would not lead to the conclusion that the control assumed was to be something in abstract, total and unfettered and not as per various provisions of the IDR Act. The lacuna, if any, is made good by hedging the power of making declaration to be made by law.
Delhi High Court Cites 143 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

This would be doing violence to the art of legislative draftsmanship. It is open to Parliament in view of Entry 52 List I, to make a declaration in LPA 742/2022 & LPA 748/2022 Page 120 of 176 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:10.04.2023 15:59:42 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2375-DB respect of industry or industries to the effect that the Union will assume its control in public interest. It is not to be some abstract control. The control has to be concrete and specific and the manner of its exercise has to be laid down in view of the well established proposition that executive authority must have the support of law for its action. In a country governed by rule of law, if the Union, an instrumentality for the governance of the country, has to exercise control over industries by virtue of a declaration made by Parliament, it must be exercised by law. Such law must prescribe the extent of control, the manner of its exercise and enforcement and consequence of breach. There is no such concept as abstract control. The control has to be concrete and the mode and method of its exercise must be regulated by law. Now, Parliament made the declaration not in abstract but as part of the IDR Act and the control was in respect of industries specified in the First Schedule appended to the Act itself. Sections 3 to 30 set out various modes and methodology, procedure and power to effectuate the control which the Union acquired by virtue of the declaration contained in Section 2. Industry as a legislative head finds its place in Entry 24 List II. The State Legislature can be denied legislative power under Entry 24 to the extent Parliament makes declaration under Entry 52 and by such declaration, Parliament acquires power to legislate only in respect of those industries in respect of which declaration is made and to the extent as manifested by legislation incorporating the declaration and no more. The Act prescribes the extent of control and specifies it. As the declaration trenches upon the State legislative power it has to be construed strictly. Therefore, even though the Act enacted under Entry 54 which is to some extent in pari materia with Entry 52 and in a parallel and cognate statute while making the declaration Parliament did use the further expression ―to the extent herein provided‖ while assuming control, the absence of such words in the declaration in Section 2 would not lead to the conclusion that the control assumed was to be something in abstract, total and unfettered and not as per various provisions of the IDR Act. The lacuna, if any, is made good by hedging the power of making declaration to be made by law.
Delhi High Court Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Union Bank Of India vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2024

The facts obtaining before the Division Bench were different and therefore are distinguishable with the facts and the contentions urged in the case at hand, again without much ado. Above all, the Division Bench was following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL supra. Therefore, the submission of the learned Attorney General of India that Article 131 of the Constitution of India is not even applicable in the case at hand becomes acceptable and there is no threshold bar for this Court to consider the issue brought up by the petitioner/Union Bank of India in the subject petition. The issue is answered accordingly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Union Of India & Another on 8 November, 1977

The observations made in the West Bengal case (supra) which have been referred to already are not in conformity with the otherwise consistent view of the Supreme Court that the Constitution is supreme and that the Union as well as the States will have to trace their powers from the provisions of the Constitution and that the Union is not supreme and the States are not acting as delegates of the Union.
Supreme Court of India Cites 149 - Cited by 182 - M H Beg - Full Document

Sri. Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2024

91. Drawing upon the rationale established in the State of West Bengal v. Union of India case mentioned supra, this court finds that these writ petitions clearly fall within the ambit of Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The dispute involves a legal question concerning the extent of the Central Government's authority to deploy the CBI within a State, that has withdrawn its consent. The resolution of this dispute will directly impact the legal rights and jurisdiction of both the Central and State
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document

S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994

In the State of West Bengal v. Union of India , this Court laid emphasis that the basis of distribution of powers and between union and the States is that only those powers and authorities, which are concerned with the regulation of local problems are vested in the state and those which tend to maintain the economic nature and commerce, unity of the nation are left with the Union.
Supreme Court of India Cites 195 - Cited by 604 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Order In Original ... on 25 November, 2016

10. The appellants have argued that the term person appearing in the definition must be construed to be a natural person as well as a juristic person and by no stretch of imagination, the same will include the State or its officers or the posts created under a statute. They cited the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Vs. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 124] in which the Apex Court has held as under:-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next