Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
Section 2 in The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972
Section 3 in Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ramdayal Sahu vs Hari Shankar Lal Sahu And Ors. on 7 July, 1966
When the Regulation came into force in 1936 the situation was very different. The provisions did not have to stated the scrutiny in the background of fundamental rights. The vires of Section 60 must, therefore, be subjected to the test of Article 19 and if it turns out to be inconsistent with it, the restrictive provision has to be struck down as ultra vires. (See Ramdayal v. Hari Shankar, AIR 1968 Pat 310 (FB).)
Section 22 in The Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Sasthi Pado Sekhar And Anr. vs Anandi Chaudhary And Ors. on 12 July, 1966
In the case of Sasthi Pado v. Anandi Chaudhary, AIR 1967 Pat 25, while examining the vires of the restriction imposed on the right of transfer under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, it was indicated:--
Iswari Prosad And Ors. vs N.R. Sen And Anr. on 30 July, 1951
"........ As early as 1952 the Calcutta High Court in Iswari Prasad v. N. R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273 (FB) while constru-ing the expression 'in the interests of general public' occurring in Clause (5) of Article 19 observed that it did not mean 'die interests of the public of the Republic of India' and that legislation affecting a limited class of persons may as well be legislation, in the public interest.