Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
Municipal Council Palai vs T.J. Joseph And Others on 14 February, 1963
The Privy Council case, however, is still an authority for the view that the question of repugnancy cannot arise until the Union law is actually brought into force in the State and indeed it is on this ground that it was distinguished by the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1561 (supra). We are, therefore. of opinion that the argument that Section 67(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act is repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which is still not in force, is not open to the petitioner.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 254 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Orissa vs M. A. Tulloch And Co.(And Connected ... on 16 August, 1963
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel proceeds upon the assumption that Section 30 of the Advocates Act not only entitles an Advocate to practise as of right but also confers a right on a litigant to be represented by an Advocate in all proceedings arising before Courts or tribunals, or persons mentioned in Section 30. Whether this assumption and contention of repugnancy based on it are correct or not would have required some consideration but for the fact that the learned counsel is unable to satisfy us that Section 30 has been brought into force. The Advocates Act received the assent of the President on May 19, 1961. Section 1(3) of this Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act. We have not been shown any notification of the Central Government by which any date has been appointed for coming into force of Section 30 of the Act. Thus, Section 30 is still not in
operation. Repugnancy between a Union Act and a State Act can arise when the Union Act evinces an intention to cover the whole field of the subject dealt with by the State Act. It is possible that the Union Act may cover the whole field giving rise to repugnancy, although statutory rules and orders have yet to be framed for giving effect to the policy of the Act; State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co., AIR 1964 SC 1284 at P. 1292. But repugnancy cannot arise until the Union Act is actually brought into force in the State.