Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.62 seconds)The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
Kerala University Act, 1974
The Special Courts Act, 1979
Sarwan Singh & Anr vs Kasturi Lal on 14 December, 1976
9. It is clear that both these Acts are special Acts. This Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that in such an event it is the later Act which must prevail The decisions cited in the above context are as follows: Maharashtra Ltd.: Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal: Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.
Bhoruka Steel Ltd. vs Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. on 9 February, 1996
In Bhoruka Steel Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. it had been contended that recovery proceedings under the Special Court Act should be stayed in view of the provisions of the 1985 Act. Rejecting this contention, the Special Court had come to the conclusion that the Special Court Act being a later enactment would prevail. The headnote which brings out succinctly the ratio of the said decision is as follows:
Engineering Kamgar Union vs M/S. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. & Anr on 16 April, 2004
The same view was expressed in Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. and Anr. . It was also held that law assented to by the President will prevail over the Central Legislation on the same field in view of Article 254(2) if there is repugnancy. It is a well settled preposition that onus is on the petitioner to prove that provisions of the Central Act and State Act contains repugnant provisions. He has to prove that the extent of repugnancy also. He has to establish that a provision or part of the provisions are repugnant. Mere possibility is not enough. Whether there is direct conflict between two statutes, whether the two statutes occupy the same field and whether legislature intents to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter etc.
Bharat Hydro Power Corp. Ltd. & Ors vs State Of Assam & Anr on 7 January, 2004
also should be examined as held by the Apex Court in Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Assam and Anr. AIR 2004 SCW 2308. Here, provisions of Central Act, namely, Motor Transport Workers Act and Kerala Headload Workers Act are not repugnant. If petitioner has permanent workers in the establishment he need register them under the Headload Workers Act as attached workers and there is no obligation to register them under the Scheme.
Transmission Corporation Of A.P vs Ch. Prabhakar & Ors on 26 May, 2004
In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch.Prabhakar and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3368.
R.S. Raghunath vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 4 October, 1991
There should be a clear inconsistency between the two enactments before giving an overriding effect to the non-obstante clause as held by the Apex Court in R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka and Anr. . Here the object of both the Acts are to protect the interest of the workers. Petitioner was not able to demonstrate that any of the provisions of both the Acts are inconsistant or repugnant to each other. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that in view of the Motor Transport Workers Act, motor transport workers are excluded under the provisions of Kerala Headload Workers Act, are untenable.