The Collector Of Customs, Madras vs Nathella Sampathu Chetty And ... on 25 September, 1961
In Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty,
[1962] 3 SCR 786 this Court observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.49 seconds)Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017
67. The Court is unable to agree that there is any manifest arbitrariness
vitiating the second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, as contended by the
Petitioners. As explained in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (supra):
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005
57. The main ground of attack on the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the
PMLA is its alleged manifest arbitrariness. The Court is, however, not
persuaded to agree with the above submission of the Petitioners for more
than one reason. First, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
Union of India, the mere possibility that a provision may be abused is not a
W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 31 of 48
ground to strike it down under Article 14 of the Constitution. The law in this
regard has been explained in a number of decisions. Illustratively, reference
may be made to Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (supra) where it
was observed as under:
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
(viii) The second proviso to Section 5(1) PMLA, as it presently stands, is
‗manifestly arbitrary' as explained by the Supreme Court in State of
W.P.(C) 5320/2017 & connected batch matters Page 24 of 48
Bombay v F.N. Balsara (1951) 2 SCR 682 and later expostulated in
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 and Shayara Bano
v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs Revamma And Ors on 24 April, 2007
It is contended that the ‗right to property' being a human right, as
explained in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma (2007) 6 SCC
59, there can be numerous instances where resort need not be had to
the powers of attachment when in fact there is no real basis, material
or apprehension that the property would be concealed, transferred or
dealt with in a manner that frustrates its confiscation. In other words,
resort to the second proviso should be had in the rarest of rare cases.
K.S. Paripoornan vs State Of Kerala on 12 September, 1994
(ix) Since the amendment is not merely procedural, but affects the
substantive right of the Petitioners, it should be applied only
prospectively. Reliance is placed on the decisions in K.S.
Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593, State of M.P. v.
G.S. Dal & Flour Mills (1992) Suppl.
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr vs G.S. Dall And Flour Mills on 19 September, 1990
(ix) Since the amendment is not merely procedural, but affects the
substantive right of the Petitioners, it should be applied only
prospectively. Reliance is placed on the decisions in K.S.
Paripoornan v. State of Kerala (1994) 5 SCC 593, State of M.P. v.
G.S. Dal & Flour Mills (1992) Suppl.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur And Others Etc. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 July, 1994
1 SCC 105 and Hitendra
Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
―In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,
[1997] 5 SCC 536, a Bench of 9 Judges observed that mere possibility
of abuse of a provision by those in charge of administering it cannot
be a ground for holding a provision procedurally or substantively
unreasonable.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977
"The possibility of abuse of a statute otherwise valid does not
impart to it any element of invalidity." It was said in State of
Rajasthan v. Union of India, [1977] 3 SCC 592 "it must be
remembered that merely because power may sometimes be
abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of power. The
wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a
Government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate
needs and at the same time incapable of mischief."‖