Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Bell vs The Municipal Commissioners For The ... on 9 January, 1902

Gade Subbayya vs Raja Kandukuri Venkata Hanumantha ... on 1 May, 1941

12. In this connection learned Counsel for petitioner laid stress on the absence in the new Act of provisions like Section 80-A and Section 84 (1) (a) of the earlier Act, and argued that it must be inferred that Parliament did not intend to confer such power on the Legislatures in India. We cannot attach any significance to the omission of these provisions in the present Act which discloses a totally different scheme with its practically exhaustive enumeration of legislative powers and their distribution among the Central and Provincial Legislatures on a Federal basis. The matters enumerated in the various Legislative Lists in Schedule VII to the Act and the residual powers of legislation provided for in Section 104 cover the entire field of Governmental activities compendiously described as "peace and good government" in Section 80-A of the Act of 1919, while Section 84 (1) (a) of that Act was, as pointed by Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., in Bell v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras (1902) 12 M.L.J. 208 : 1.L.R. 25 Mad. 457, really superfluous and came to be inserted only ex majore cautela for reasons connected with the history of constitutional development in this country.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S. Gopalan vs State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 20 March, 1958

The right of the Government to assess land to land revenue and to vary such assessment from, time to time is not...a right created or conferred by any statute but as stated in my judgment in Bell v. Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras (1902) 12 M.L.J. 208 : I.L.R. 25 Mad. 457 at 482, it is a prerogative of the Grown according to the ancient and Common Law of India. The prerogative right consists in this, that the Grown can by an executive act determine and fix the Rajabhogamtor the King's share in the produce of the land and vary such share from time to time.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Director Of Rationing And Distribution vs The Corporation Of Calcutta And Others on 16 August, 1960

form of government adopted by us would not warrant a departure from the long established rule of construction. It was then said that the course of legislation in India would indicate that it was not intended even before the Constitution that the rule would apply to Indian statutes. This contention was based on Bell's case(1). That case seems to me to have proceeded on a basis not very sound. On an examination of certain Indian statutes it was said, " It is noteworthy that as a general rule government is specially excluded whenever the Legislature considered that certain provisions of an enactment should not bind the Government ". From this the conclusion was drawn that "According to the uniform course of Indian legislation, statutes imposing duties or taxes bind Government as much as its subjects, unless the very nature of the duty or tax is such as to be inapplicable to the Government ". It seems to me that this decision overlooks the uniform course of decisions of Indian Courts applying the rule in the construction of Indian statutes. The legislature must be deemed to have known of these decisions and if they wanted to depart from their effect they would have passed a statute bringing about the desired result. No such statute was ever passed. It is wellknown that in these circumstances the legislatures must be taken to have proceeded on the basis that the decisions were correct and the rule was to be applied to the statutes passed by them. That being so, an examination of the course of Indian legislation would be irrelevant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 62 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Builders Supply Corporation vs Union Of India And Others. on 21 June, 1955

The decision therefore decided nothing and even to the extent that it expressed a doubt by means of an obiter dictum as to the applicability of the doctrine of priority in the mofussil areas of India it has since been dissented from in other decisions of the Madras High Court, for example, in Bell v. The Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras. In my view, it is futile to contend that the law of India has never recognised the principle of the priority of Crown claims.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V. Sesha Sarma vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 13 January, 1960

"The right of Government to assess land to land revenue and to vary such assessment from time to time is not a right created or conferred by any statute, but, as stated in my judgment in Bell v. Municipal Commissioner for the City of Madras, ILR 25 Mad 457 at p. 482, is a prerogative of tile Crown according to the ancient and common law of India. The prerogative right consists in this, that the Crown can by an executive act determine and fix the 'Rajabhagam' or king's share in the produce of land and vary such share from time to time."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next