Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Maruti Janu Mhskar(D/H) And Anothr vs Muktabai Suryakant Bhoir And Others on 13 March, 2024 cites

Prakash vs Phulavati . on 16 October, 2015

Supreme Court clarified this portion in Vineeta Sharma (Supra) where it overruled Prakash v. Phulavati (Supra) and reiterated that the coparcenary rights is an 'unobstructed heritage' which cannot be 24 Amol D. Nawale ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 10:13:19 ::: SA.699.2012.doc restricted by any conditions, and it applies uniformly to sons and daughters.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 270 - A K Goel - Full Document

Babu Jyotiram Jadhav And Others vs Muktabai Wamanrao Somwanshi on 2 December, 2021

In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid three pronouncements, it was not necessary for the Parliament to repeal Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act. Taking into consideration both the enactments, i.e. Section 29-A and Section 6, as amended in 2005, they cannot stand together and, therefore, the law made by the Parliament would prevail over the State Law in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India."
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And ... vs State Of Bihar And Others on 6 May, 1983

"67. Article 254 of the Constitution makes provision first, as to what would happen in the case of conflict between a Central and State law with regard to the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List, and secondly, for resolving such conflict. Article 254(1) enunciates the normal rule that in the event of a conflict between a Union and a State law in the concurrent field, the former prevails over the latter. Clause (1) lays down that if a State law relating to a concurrent subject is repugnant' to a Union law relating to that subject, then, whether the Union law is prior or later in time, the Union law will prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, be void. To the general rule laid down in clause (1), clause (2) engrafts an exception viz. that if the President assents to a State law which has been reserved for his consideration, it will prevail notwithstanding its repugnancy to an earlier law of the Union, both laws dealing with a concurrent subject. In such a case, the Central Act, will give way to the State Act only to the extent of inconsistency between the two, and no more. In short, the result of obtaining the assent of the President to a State Act which is inconsistent with a previous Union law relating to a concurrent subject would be that the State Act will prevail in that State and override the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to that State only. The predominance of the State law may however be taken away if Parliament legislates under the proviso to clause (2). The proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the state law with the respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law 28 Amol D. Nawale ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2024 10:13:19 ::: SA.699.2012.doc will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws. Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand together."
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 424 - A P Sen - Full Document
1