Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (1.40 seconds)

C.R.H. Readymoney Ltd. And Ors. vs State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1955

12. Mr. Dwarkadas has relied on the decision of this Court in C.R.H. Readymoney Ltd. vs. State of Bombay1 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya vs. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd.2 and submitted that no negative import can be implied from the words "it shall be lawful" used in the second proviso to Regulation 4 (3) of the CLB Regulations. It 1 AIR 1956 Bom 304 2 AIR 1962 SC 1543 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:01 ::: KPP -22- Company Appeal (L) No. 28 of 2012 is submitted that the purport of the second proviso to Regulation 4 (3) of the CLB Regulations is meant to get over an order, if any, passed under Regulation 4 (3) of the CLB Regulations by which only the Regional Benches could "deal with" matters falling under all other sections of the Act other than those arising under Sections 247, 250, 269 and 388 B of the Act. It does not carry the negative import of depriving the Learned Chairman of the CLB of his inherent power or power under Section 10E (4B) of the Act to allocate work which would include the power to transfer matters from one Regional Bench to another Regional Bench, more so when there is no express bar from doing so. Mr. Dwarkadas has therefore submitted that strictly without prejudice to his above submissions and in the alternative if this Court were to come to the conclusion that the second proviso to Regulation 4 of the CLB Regulations does provide for a positive power of transfer to the Learned Chairman of the CLB to transfer matters from the Regional benches to the Principal Bench, it would be incorrect to proceed on the footing that the second proviso to Regulation 4 is the sole repository of the power of transfer available with the Learned Chairman of the CLB to transfer matters. The power to transfer matters from one Bench to another is within the implicit and inherent powers of the Learned Chairman of the CLB and therefore the same would not be restricted in any way by the second proviso to Regulation 4 of the CLB Regulations providing for a limited power of transfer.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Maharana Jaywantsinhji Ranmalsinhji ... vs The State Of Bombay on 13 July, 1954

35. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decisions in The Member, Board of Revenue vs. Arthur Paul Benthall (supra), B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) and the decision of this Court in Maharana Jaywantsinhji Ranmalsinhji Thakore Saheb of Sanand vs. The State of Bombay (supra), where a statute uses different expressions they mean different things. Such distinction is also clearly brought out in Section 10E of the Act as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1