Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.67 seconds)
Documents citing Godavaris Misra vs Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa ... on 5 December, 1952

M/S Vatika One India Next Private ... vs Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited on 19 December, 2022

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005642 ―14.11. The language of Section 18 is clear and specific. What is prevented to be entertained by the Courts, are claims and proceedings ―in relation to the matters specified in Section 17‖, which would indicate matters under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The expression ―in relation to‖ has been held to be of wider significance [Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, AIR 1953 Ori 111]; the widest amplitude [Thysssin Stahlunion GMBTT v. Steel Authority of India (1999) 9 SCC 334]; used in the expansive sense [Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299] and may at times also include all things incidental and ancillary thereto. However, in the instant matter the expression ―in relation to‖ has been suffixed with ―the matters specified in Section 17‖ making the expression as ―in relation to the matters specified in Section 17‖. The suffix ―the matters specified in Section 17‖ in fact in our considered opinion, restricts and controls the expression ―in relation to‖, and lays down the parameters within which the provision has to operate, namely to those as specified in sec.17 of the DRT Act, 1993.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

K.P. Kochanujan Thirumulpad vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 1960

It was held in Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore, AIR 1953 Orissa 111, that the Speaker of the Assembly, in respect of his action in disallowing certain questions, notice of which had been given by a member of the Assembly, could not be controlled by the exercise of the powers under Article 226. in Bhairabendra Narayan v. State of Assam, AIR 1953 Assam 162, it was held that no Court can interfere with any authority concerned with the making of laws during the formative stages of an enactment, and that it was not possible for the Court to look into an intended piece of legislation.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bhajaman Bobera vs Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly ... on 31 July, 1989

So far as this Court is concerned, there are three earlier Bench decisions on the point, namely the High Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 226 to decide the legality of a proceeding in the Legislature of the State. (See Saradhakar Supakar v. Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly and Secretary, Orissa Legislature Assembly, AIR 1952 Orissa 234; Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, AIR 1953 Orissa 111; and Surendra Mohanty v. Nabakrishna Choudhury, AIR 1958 Orissa 168). In the premises, as aforesaid, and in view of my conclusion that the infirmities alleged by the petitioner can at best be said to be an irregularity of procedure and not a case of inherent lack of, jurisdiction or an illegality touching the jurisdiction, I am not inclined to entertain this application to decide the legality of the notices served on the petitioner in course of a proceeding initiated for disqualification of the petitioner under the Rules.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Spedding Dinga Singh & Co. vs The Punjab State on 14 May, 1968

In Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, AIR 1953 Orissa 111, it was held that the expression 'in the Legislature' used in Clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution is not limited to the proceedings during the actual session of the Parliament nor is the Legislature referred to therein is the Legislative House in its geographical sense but would include preliminary steps such as giving of notice of the questions or notice of resolutions etc., business which may possibly be transacted outside the geographical precincts of the Legislative Assembly concerned. As already stated, the meaning to be assigned to any particular word, which is not otherwise defined in the relevant statute, must always depend on the context in which it is used. It is a well settled rule of interpretation of statutes that meaning and effect must be given to every word of the relevant enactment in construing it and, as already stated, the construction sought to be placed on the relevant provision by Mr. Sodhi would, in my opinion, amount to obliterating from the statute and ignoring the words 'in the generation or distribution of such energy'.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surendra Vassant Sirsat Of Mapusa, Goa vs Legislative Assembly Of State Of Goa on 14 June, 1995

In Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, the High Court of Orissa held that it was not the function of the High Court to re-examine the questions with refer ence to the Rules and to decide whether the Speaker's construction of the Rules or his application of the Rules to the questions that were placed before him were correct. It was held that the Rules conferred on him the power to decide these matters. The powers of the Speaker pro-tern are co-extensive with the powers of elected Speaker. It was held that the phrase, "in respect of", in Article 212 had wider connotation than the word "in" and so long as the Speaker's action was relatable to any of the provisions dealing with his powers for regulating the procedure and conduct of business in the Legislature, the Court's jurisdiction was ousted. An authority who is conferred jurisdiction to decide a question may decide it rightly or wrongly or may refuse to decide it or adopt a permissible alternative procedure with the approval of the majority in the House. The question of propriety of the impugned decision of the Speaker pro-tem is not justiciable.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - T K Das - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda, Through Its Branch ... vs Gopal Shriram Panda And Another on 25 March, 2021

(emphasis supplied) 14.11. The language of Section 18 is clear and specific. What is prevented to be entertained by the Courts, are claims and proceedings "in relation to the matters specified in Section 17", which would indicate matters under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The expression "in relation to" has been held to be of wider significance CRA 29 of 2011.odt 86 [Godavaris Misra Vs. Nandakisore Das, Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly, AIR 1953 Orissa 111]; the widest amplitude [Thysssin Stahlunion GMBTT Vs. Steel Authority of India (1999) 10 SCC 378 ]; used in the expansive sense [M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (1988) 2 SCC 299] and may at times also include all things incidental and ancillary thereto. However, in the instant matter the expression "in relation to" has been suffixed with "the matters specified in Section 17" making the expression as "in relation to the matters specified in Section 17". The suffix "the matters specified in Section 17" in fact in our considered opinion, restricts and controls the expression "in relation to", and lays down the parameters within which the provision has to operate, namely to those as specified in sec.17 of the DRT Act, 1993. 14.12.
Bombay High Court Cites 173 - Cited by 14 - A G Gharote - Full Document

A.K. Bose vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 1 February, 2008

In Godavaris Misra v. Nandakisore Das (supra), a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Speaker for disallowing two questions raised by Shri Misra in notices dated 5-9-52 and 6-9-52 and the Court held that the Speaker had the authority to disallow the two questions and once he had such authority he could decide it either rightly or wrongly and so long as he was within his jurisdiction, he was immune from interference by the Court and was protected under Clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Cites 126 - Cited by 8 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1