Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.86 seconds)

Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 1994

72. The total prohibition underlined by the policy decision is arbitrary and illegal for another reason also. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Chintamanrao v. State of M.P. and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (supra) only those professions which are inherently vicious or obnoxious or injurious to health, safety and welfare of general public can be prohibited completely because the right to practise profession or to carry on any occupation does not extend to such inherently vicious and pernicious trade or business. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the trade or business in music, dance and singing is inherently vicious and pernicious warranting a total prohibition in the interest of general public. Such a restriction is an unreasonable restriction. Singing, music and dancing come under the category of amusement or entertainment. The activity of obscenity or indecency being indulged in such performances can always be remedied by appropriate subordinate legislation or by an executive order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 408 - P B Sawant - Full Document

E.I. Narayanan And Ors. vs The Regional Transport Authority, ... on 15 January, 1980

In I.E. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tail/ore, , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the restrictions placed upon the use of the bus-stand for the purpose of picking up or getting down passengers cannot be considered to be unreasonable and there is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on business wherever he chooses and his right must be subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the executive authority in the interests of the public convenience.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next