Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953
In the case of --'Election Commission India v. Saka Venkata Rao', AIR 1933 SC 210 (B), the relevant facts are that the respondent Saka Venkata Rao was declared elected to the Madras Legislative Assembly and he took his seat as a member of the Assembly on 27-6-1952. Before the elections were held, Venkata Rao had applied to the Election Commission for exemption from the disqualification that attached to him by virtue of the provisions of Section 7(b), Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Commissioner rejected his application for exemption and communicated their order to the respondent by means of a letter dated 13-5-1952, but it was not received by him. A communication to the same effect was also sent to the Speaker of the Assembly and he on 3-7-1952 read out this communication, The Speaker then referred the question to the Governor of Madras, who forwarded the case to the Election Commission for its opinion.
K.S. Rashid And Son vs The Income-Tax Investigation ... on 22 January, 1954
9. To the same effect is another decision of the Supreme Court reported in -- 'K. S. Rashid & Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission', AIR 1954 SC 207 (C). In this case it was held that the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ to the Income-tax Investigation Commission in Delhi, though the assessees were residents of U. P. and the original assessments against them were made by the Income-tax Authorities in this State.
Hafiz Mohammad Yusuf vs The Custodian General, Evacuee ... on 22 December, 1953
In this case the petitioner had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash certain orders passed by the Assistant Custodian, the Additional Custodian and the Custodian General and, on a preliminary objection being raised to the maintainability o the petition, it was held by this Court that the orders of the Assistant Custodian and the Additional Custodian merged in that of the Custodian General, and as the office of the Custodian General was located outside the State of U. P., this Court could not issue any writ to the Custodian General. No relief in that case was sought against the Union of India or against the Government of the Union of India. A relief was sought against an order passed by the Custodian General whose office, like that of the Election Commission, was located in Delhi.
Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 7 May, 1954
10. We respectfully agree with the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of -- 'Kesar Sugar Works Ltd., v. Union of India', AIR 1954 All 726 (D), where it was held that this Court had no jurisdiction to quash an order issued by the Ministry of Food of the Union Government. To the same effect is the decision of a single Judge in -- 'Tej.
Tej Bhan Madan vs Govt. Of India on 18 February, 1954
Bhan Madan v. Government of India', AIR 1954 All 522 '(E), where the learned Judge held that the High Court of Allahabad had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus where the order challenged was an order passed at New Delhi by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India.
1