Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (1.45 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Mysore vs H. Sanjeeviah on 16 January, 1967

Gujarat Bidi Tamaku And Timrupan ... vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 13 February, 2002

26. The decision of State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah (supra), on which heavy reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners, is distinguishable, where not by any statutory Rule, but by a Notification issued on the administrative side, requirement was imposed of giving cash security and deposit for import and transport of timber. It is on that ground that it was held that the two provisos introduced by Notification to the Rules were not even in exercise of delegated authority and they do not become part of the Act. In that case, there was also no material placed by the State to justify the imposition of such a condition of cash deposit as a requirement in public interest. It is in these circumstances that the Notifications were held to be violative of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. That case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sardar Dayal Singh Bagga And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 6 January, 1988

For this observation, the Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah, AIR 1967 SC 1189. This Court finally held that the orders of the Chief Conservator of Forests in that case which imposed restriction on export of firewood outside the State of Madhya Pradesh did not have any support of law and were held invalid in so far as they related to firewood purchased in auctions which contained no restriction on the movement of firewood outside the State. No decision to the contrary either of this Court or of any other Court was brought to our notice. We could also not be persuaded to take a contrary view.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

S. Kumar And Ors. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 1 July, 1983

State of Mysore Vs. H. Sanjeeviah (1967) 2 SCR 361: (AIR 1967 SC 1189) was cited to us to show that rules did not become part of the statute. That was a case where by reference to Section 77 of the Mysore Forest Act which declared the effect of the rules, it was held that the rules when made did not become part of the Act. That was apparently because of the specific provisions of Section 77 which while declaring that the rules would have the force of law stopped short of declaring that they would become part of the Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 62 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984

Petitioners contend that under Article 302 only Parliament can impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India and when Article 304(b) confers power on the State Legislature to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse without or within the State in public interest, after the previous sanction of the President of India, and, such a condition precedent having not been complied with, and the rules having been made by the executive Government, and not by the State Legislature, they are illegal. Mr. D. Raju, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, in strenuously advancing this point relied Upon State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah wherein it was held that the two provisos to Rule 2 of the Transit Rules framed under Mysore Forest Act are restrictive in nature, and they having not been made by the Legislature of that State, but by the executive Government in exercise of delegated authority, Article 304 being an exception to Article 301, the impugned provisos therein were invalid. By referring to The Dist.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

M/S Rushil Decor Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka By on 5 June, 2024

7. The Supreme Court addressed a similar issue regarding restrictions on transporting forest products between sunset and sunrise in State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah (supra). The Court ruled that regulatory measures facilitating rather than obstructing trade, commerce, and movement are not unconstitutional under Article 301, irrespective of reservations in Article 305.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H Chandangoudar - Full Document

Rajkot Lodhika Sahakari Kharid Vechan ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 9 September, 1980

58. Mr. V.B. Patel has, in his turn, invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah . It was a case under the Mysore Forest Act, 1900, which required a permit to be taken for transporting forest produce. In that case, question under Article 304 of the Constitution arose. The Supreme Court has laid down that Article 304 is an exception to Article 301. It exempts from the operation of Article 301 reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse with or within the State as may be required in the public interest. It has next been observed that Article 304 saves certain law from the operation of Article 301.
Gujarat High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - G T Nanavati - Full Document

Sodhi Transport Company And Anr. vs The State Of U.P. on 25 May, 1982

The decision in State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah AIR 1967 SC 1189 is of no assistance to the petitioners. In that case two provisos appended to Rule 2 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Mysore Forest Act provided (1) that no permit shall authorise any person to transport forest produce between sun-set and sun-rise in any of the areas specified in Schedule A and (2)(i) that the party who wishes to avail of the concessions should pay a cash deposit of Rs. 1,000 as security for due compliance with the timber transit rules as in force, (ii) that the deposit may be forfeited to Government for breach of any of the conditions of the timber transit rules. Dealing with the provisions the Supreme Court observed :
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next