Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.31 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 36 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 228 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan ... vs State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 11 September, 1953
In the Madras case, the incidents of hereditary trusteeship were discussed and the conclusion reached was that there was ample authority for the view that trusteeship where hereditary, is in the nature of property. Their Lordships observed:
Rajasthan State vs Nathmal And Anr. on 13 May, 1952
(6) of the Memorandum shows that the right shall be hereditarily vested in the said firms and their heirs, executors or administrators and in the said firing as from time to time constituted; that is to say, it contemplates even strangers, and not necessarily members of the joint family, becoming member's of the firm. Let us, however, assume that the rights claimed by the petitioners are in the nature of property within the meaning of Article 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. Even so, the question is whether the writ prayed for should issue against the respondent-company and its directors. It is true that even in a case where the violation of fundamental rights related to property, a writ of mandamus was issued by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Nathmal, (26). But it will be seen that in all those cases, the infringement of fundamental rights was by the State and the writ issued against the State even though the remedy at law was available. Mr. Nambiar has not been able to rite any decision in which a writ was issued for violation of rights to property by individuals or companies.
P.D. Shamdasani vs Central Bank Of India Ltd on 21 December, 1951
On the other hand, in P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd., 1952 SCJ 29: (AIR 1952 SC 69) (Z7), a petition was filed to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) arid Article 31 CD alleged to have been violated by the Central Bank of India Ltd. The petitioners held five shares in the share capital of the bank which sold those shares to a third party in exercise of its rights of a Hen for recovery of a debt due from the petitioner. Their Lordships held that the petition must fail on a preliminary ground. They pointed out that neither Article 19(1)(f) nor Article 31 CD, on its true construction, was intended to prevent wrongful individual acts or to provide protection against merely private conduct and that the language and structure of Art 19 and its setting in Part III of the Constitution showed that the article was intended to protect those freedoms against the State action and that the violation of rights of property by individuals was not within the purview of the Article. They further pointed out that similarly the words save by authority of law
in Clause (1) of Article 31 showed that it was a prohibition of unauthorised governmental action against private property. According to their Lordships, it was a fundamental misconception that Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1), which are great constitutional safeguards against State aggression on private property, are directed against infringement by private individuals for which remedies should be sought in the ordinary law. It follows that the attempt of Mr. Nambiar to bring this case within the terms of the first exception must fail.