Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Haribhau S/O Kashinath Gulhane And ... vs The Maharashtra, State Election ... on 4 May, 2018 cites

Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 January, 2017

43. The larger Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (supra) relied upon by the petitioners as also respondents needs a look in this backdrop. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 93 has observed that upon an Ordinance ceasing to operate, all consequences that have ensued would stand effaced and obliterated. In paragraph 99, it is held that Ordinance which has not been placed before Legislature is of no consequence ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:50:47 ::: wp6175.16 32 whatsoever. In paragraph 100, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that once an Ordinance is placed before Legislature, Constitutional fiction by which it has the same force and effect as a LAW enacted, comes into force and relates back to the date of Ordinance. In the absence of this compliance, this constitutional fiction does not come into existence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 95 - Cited by 155 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986

In Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (supra) reported at (1987) 1 SCC 378, in para 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has given ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:50:47 ::: wp6175.16 31 list of 256 Ordinances which were kept alive for periods ranging between 1 to 14 years by repeated promulgation from time to time. The further discussion in para 7 is in the backdrop of facts noted in para 5. There on facts, a finding has been reached that the State of Bihar did bye-pass the Legislature and without enacting Ordinances into Acts in the Legislature, re- promulgated the Ordinance as soon as Legislature was prorogued. Thus, on facts again, the judgment does not support petitioners before us. Here effort was made in July, 2016 to convert Ordinance IX of 2016 into an Act of Legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 378 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Greater Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd vs M/S United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 4 April, 2007

The Ordinance may operate for short duration and expire without any further action. The Ordinance may be approved by the competent Legislature or then similar measures can be independently approved by such Legislature. Here, the measures are approved by both Houses of State Legislature and there is no challenge to constitutionality or otherwise of those measures. The challenge is to procedure through which changes are inserted and actual changes i.e. amendment have not been assailed either as malafide or grounds available as in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex.
Supreme Court of India Cites 139 - Cited by 195 - L S Panta - Full Document

S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994

39. The petitioners have pointed out judgment in the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, (supra) to urge that availability of material to support satisfaction is justiciable and the contention that defect in Ordinance also travels to Act No. IX of 2017. Paragraphs to which our attention has been invited are already mentioned by us supra. Additionally, paragraphs 374 and 434 were also pressed into service by Shri Mirza, learned counsel. Paragraph 434 summarizes the conclusions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 212 - Cited by 225 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 February, 2011

In the case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:50:47 ::: wp6175.16 28 pointed out in paras 38 to 43, law in this respect. The consideration therein shows a finding that such an error of not drawing separate Bill on the strength of Ordinance No. XVI of 2016 cannot be seen as a gross or substantive irregularity or unconstitutionality. It is only an irregularity and after competent Legislature adopts the measures suggested in the Ordinance, those measures become a valid law. Alleged errors cannot vitiate such a law at all.
Patna High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 65 - R Ranjan - Full Document

A.K. Roy Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 December, 1981

18. Relying upon Article 212 of the Constitution of India, he submits that after an "Act" (enactment) is passed by the Legislature, the same needs to be viewed and considered independently, ignoring the previous background. The defect in Bill or then defect in Ordinance, therefore, cannot creep in such an Act. He draws support from paras 28 and 29 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.K. Roy vs. Union of India & Ors., reported at (1982) 1 SCC 271.
Supreme Court of India Cites 109 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Ambedkarite Party Of India Thr. General ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal ... on 16 September, 2016

20. Number of elections due in January 2016 and emergent situations springing therefrom is pressed into service by pointing out paras 3, 4 & 5 of the affidavit dated 02.04.2018 mentioned supra. He further points out that validity of ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:50:47 ::: wp6175.16 17 Ordinance No. IX of 2016 is already upheld by the this Court in the case of Ambedkarite Party of India vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2017 (2) Mh. L.J. 575 (paras 15 to 17). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6351 of 2016 is one of the petitioners in said matter.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - B R Gavai - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996

(P) Ltd. & Ors., (supra), after reiterating this principle, Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of State of A.P. & Ors. vs. Mcdowell & Co. & Ors., reported at (1996) 3 SCC 709 and pointed out that there is no third ground on the basis of which law made by the competent Legislature can be invalidated and the challenge seeking invalidation has to fall within four corners of the afore mentioned two grounds. Once we find that there was an urgency justifying issuance of Ordinance and ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:50:47 ::: wp6175.16 23 satisfaction recorded by the Hon'ble Governor is valid, the wisdom behind the provisions or scheme stipulated in the Ordinance, is not justiciable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 491 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1