Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi And Another vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 20 February, 1953
But strong reliance is placed on an observation of Mr. Justice Mukherjea in Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi v. The State of Bihar [1953] S.C.R. 1129 (p. 1143) :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs Employees Of The Bharat Bank ... on 26 May, 1950
Therefore, if the Commission we arc considering merely investigates and declares a liability without having the power to enforce it, its inquiry cannot be looked upon as a judicial inquiry in the sense of its being in exercise of the judicial function of the state. As against this Mr. Pathak has relied on the Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. [1950] SC.R. 459. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering Article 136 of the Constitution, and the question was whether the Supreme Court could entertain an application for leave to appeal from a decision of a tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Supreme Court held that it had such jurisdiction. In that case, once the tribunal had given its decision, it became an award and that award became binding on an order passed by Government; but once the order of Government was passed, the award would become enforceable proprio vigore. Therefore, it could not be said of an industrial tribunal that it merely advises or reports to Government, nor could it be said of the Commission in question that at any time or under any condition its decision would become binding proprio vigore. In our opinion, therefore, this case has no application to the facts that we are considering.
V. M. Syed Mohammad And Company vs The State Of Andhra.(With Connected ... on 11 March, 1954
23. We had an interesting discussion as to the burden of proof in this case. There is a general presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an Act. Is there any difference in the position when the challenge to legislation is based under Article 14 ? Mr. Justice Das, as he then was, in V.M. Syed Mohammad and Company v. The Stale of Andhra [1954] S.C.R. 1117 at p. 1120 stated that there was a strong presumption in favour of the validity of legislative classification and it was for those who challenge it as unconstitutional to allege and prove beyond all doubt that the legislation arbitrarily discriminates between different persons similarly circumstanced. So what is required is not merely an allegation on the part of the petitioner, but proof beyond all doubt.
1