Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.63 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Article 48A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996
(j) Decision in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in (1999) 5 JT (SC) 114 : (AIR 1999 SC 2583), was cited to show that It is not always necessary for the Court to strike down an order merely because the order has been passed against the petitioners in breach of natural justice.
Article 243W in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 69 in The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
T. B. Ibrahim vs Regional Transport Authority,Tanjore on 5 December, 1952
(a) Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in T. B. Ibrahim v. The Regional Transport Authority, reported in AIR 1953 SC 79, it was contended that there was 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 under the law In the interest of public convenience.
Cooverjee B. Bharucha vs The Excise Commissioner Andthe Chief ... on 13 January, 1954
(b) Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, reported in AIR 1954 SC 220, it was submitted that the right of every citizen to pursue any lawful trade or business was obviously subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, order and morals of the community. In that judgment, construing the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) and Clause 6 thereof, the Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that some occupations by the noise made in their pursuit, some by the odours they generate, and some by the dangers accompanying them, require regulations as to the locality in which they may be conducted.
Govindji Vithaldas And Co. vs The Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 14 August, 1956
(c) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Govindji Vithaldas and Co. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, reported in AIR 1959 Bom 26, in which construing the provisions of Section 376(5) of the said Act, the Chief JusticeM. C. Chagla, speaking for the Bench, held that it was erroneous to suggest that an arbitrary and unbridled discretion has been conferred upon the Municipal Commissioner to refuse a licence under Section 376(5) to a person who applies for it. It was held that where the Court can discover a policy underlying the law and if a discretion was conferred under that law, then the Court must hold that the discretion was to be exercised not in an arbitrary or in a capricious or in an uncontrolled manner, but in a manner so as to effectuate the policy of the law. In issuing a licence or withholding a licence the Municipal Commissioner was effectuating the policy of the law which was to regulate all businesses which are likely to be a nuisance in the wide sense in which that word is defined in Section 2(40) of the Act. It was held that Section 376 of the said Act did not constitute an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of a person to carry on business guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987
(d) Decision in Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1109, in which it was observed that whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Article 48-A of the Constitution was referred to by the learned Counsel. It was observed therein that when the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority.