Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.26 seconds)
Vijay Kumar vs Delhi Administration And Anr. on 9 April, 1974 cites

Emperor vs Savlaram Kashinath Joshi on 17 March, 1947

In the case of Savalaram Kashinath Joshi (supra), decided by the Bombay High Court and which decision was approved by the Supreme Court, the notification dated August 23, 1928 had empowered Assistant Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents at six specified places including the Poona City and on the basis of that notification the Deputy Superintendent of Police Poona city in the year 1944 was held to be specially empowered for purposes of section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. Obviously the other Assistant Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents at the five other specified places, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police for Poona city, could, also be regarded to be specially empowered. In our opinion there can be special empowerment either by name or by virtue of office of more than one individual but when the entire class is empowered the empowerment ceases t6 be special and becomes general. The distinction between "specially empowered" and "generally empowered" is not that the empowerment is in favor of one or more than one individual but whether the empowerment is of a person or persons as distinguished from empowerment of the entire class. The conferment of power ceases to be special when the entire class is empowered. In that event the element of selection inherent in specially empowering would be lacking. It is, however, immaterial whether empowerment is by name or by virtue of office or .that the successors of the persons specially empowered are intended to be also so empowered.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next