Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Iswari Prosad And Ors. vs N.R. Sen And Anr. on 30 July, 1951

Milap Chand vs Dwarka Das on 22 April, 1954

18. What the learned Advocate General asks us is that we should also take notice of the circumstances which were prevailing at the time when the impugned Act was passed, and if we do so, it will be found that the restrictions placed were not only reasonable restrictions, but that the State was justified in passing this law which, on the face of it, applies to the whole of Rajas-than. and in applying it to such towns where those conditions existed, which led to the passing of the law. Whether conditions existed in a particular town to which the impugned Act was applied is a question of fact which can most properly be judged by the Government and unless it is proved that there were mala fides in a particular case, the application of the impugned Act to a particular town must be held to be based on the existence of those conditions. We feel that the conditions existing in Rajasthan at the end of 1950 when this Act came to be passed were not dissimilar from those described by Harries C. J. in -- 'Iswari Prosad's case (G)', and there was therefore justification for passing the impugned Act in order to control rents. The same circumstances, in our opinion, justify the selective application of the law to such towns as required, in the opinion of the Government, the enforcement of the impugned Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Syed Habib Hussain And Ors. vs Kamal Chand on 24 April, 1968

25. Mr. Gupta has however raised another argument, with reference to issue No. 3 (c), that the easement of privacy claimed by the plaintiffs is unconstitutional. He has argued that Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution uarantees the fundamental right to all citizens "to acquire, hold and dispose of property," and that the defendant's right to hold his property is an absolute right and the plaintiffs could not make a grievance if he exercised it by constructing a house in which there were windows or balconies overlooking any portion of the house of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has argued with reference to Ishwari Prosad v. N. R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273 (FB) that the right to hold the property guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to enjoy the same and that where a person's enjoyment of property is restricted, his right to hold the property is also thereby restricted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

Ramashankar Prosad And Ors. vs Sindri Iron Foundry (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 28 September, 1965

Iswari Prosad Goenka v. N. R. Sen, . In so far as it is held so, the decision remains good law to this day in spite of reversal on other points by the Supreme Court. Again, Crawford in Construction of Statutes (1940) points out that to interpret a statute on the basis of headings inserted by clerks or revisors who cannot exercise legislative power will be to allow such clerks or revisers to encroach upon the prerogative of the legislature--a reasoning which cannot be applicable where the headings are inserted by the legislature when the bill is drafted or enacted.
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 49 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Sashibhusan Pati vs Mangala Biswal on 12 January, 1953

In a recent Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in -- 'Iswari Prosad v. N. K. Sen', AIR 1952 Cal 273 at p. 278 (FB) (H) the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court pointed out that 'the interests of the general public' referred to in Article 19(1)(f) did not mean 'the interests of the public of the whole of the Republic of India'. He further pointed out:
Orissa High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 8 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

Mathew Aymanithal vs Collector And Ors. on 2 July, 1974

"........ As early as 1952 the Calcutta High Court in Iswari Prasad v. N. R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273 (FB) while constru-ing the expression 'in the interests of general public' occurring in Clause (5) of Article 19 observed that it did not mean 'die interests of the public of the Republic of India' and that legislation affecting a limited class of persons may as well be legislation, in the public interest.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghunath Choudhury vs Budhi Naik on 11 July, 1963

7. Mr. Pal rightly did not challenge the reasonableness of the restriction on transfer, imposed by Rule 3, but urged that there was nothing on record to show that the restriction was in the interest of the general public. According to him the low castes and tribes specified in the note attached to that Rule cannot be said to constitute the "general public", and any law made for their benefit cannot be held to be in the interest of the "General Public". This argument is also not available in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. As early as 1952 the Calcutta High Court in Iswari Prosad v. N.R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273 while construing the expression "in the interests of general public" occurring in Clause (5) of Article 19 observed that it did not mean "the interests of the public of the Republic of India" and that legislation affecting a limited class of persons may as well be legislation in the public interest.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tula And Ors. vs Sadh And Ors. on 23 October, 1961

25. The customary right claimed by the respondents in the instant case is to graze their cattle in the disputed land during the Kharif season. Cattle have a very important place in the economy of the hilly regions. All the owners of cattle do not own pasture land. The right to graze cattle in the land of another is thus a very valuable right. According to the respondents it is the Gujars of three villages who have a right to graze their cattle in the disputed land and it has next to be considered if the interests of the aforesaid Gujars can be held to be the interest of the general public. The words 'general public' as used in Clause (5) are wide enough to include a section of the public also. The expression 'interests of the general public' does not mean the interest of the public of whole of the Republic of India. It means nothing more than in the public interest' and legislation affecting a limited class of persons or limited, area might well be legislation in public interest, vide Iswari Prosad v. N.R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273 and Bramadathan Nambooripad v. Cochin Devaswom Board, AIR 1956 Trav-Co. 19. The customary right claimed may thus well be regarded to be in the interest of general public and ex hypothesi a reasonable restriction on the right of the appellants to hold their property.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next