Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.59 seconds)Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anand Bihari And Ors vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 20 December, 1990
A scheme was directed to be framed for
providing alternative jobs along with retirement benefits and for
payment of additional compensation proportionate to the length of
service rendered by them, in case of non availability of alternative
jobs, it was brought to our notice that in view of the judgment in
Anand Bihari v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the
Transport Commissioner, State of Haryana has issued a
communication dated 20.8.1992.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Federation Of Blind vs Union Public Service Commission And ... on 23 March, 1993
47. This obligation is merely an affirmation of the primary duty
not to discriminate, enjoined by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The Supreme Court had recognized the need by the
employer, particularly the State, to ensure rehabilitative measures
to persons incurring disability. This emerges from reported
decisions prior to the coming into force of the Act (Ref ( Ref
Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar 1986 (Supp) SCC 576;
B.R. Kapoor v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 662 and National
Federation of Blind v. Union Public Service Commission:
Ramji Purshottam (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Laxmanbhai D, Kurlawala (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 23 April, 2004
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills And ... vs Subbash Chandra Yograj Sinha on 21 April, 1961
14. Justice G.P. Singh states in Principles of Statutory
Interpretation (9th Edn., 2004, at p. 462)
[T]he fact that a prospective benefit under a statutory provision is
in certain cases to be measured by or depends on antecedent facts
does not necessarily make the provision retrospective. ... the rule
against retrospective construction is not always applicable to a
statute merely because a part of the requisites for its action is
drawn from time antecedent to its passing.'` In Shah Bhojraj
Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj
Sinha1 the Constitution Bench held that Bombay Act 57 of 1947 is
a piece of legislation passed to protect the tenants against the evil
of eviction. And the benefit of the provisions of the Act ought to
be extended to the tenants against whom the proceedings are
pending on the date of coming into force of the legislation.
Sri B Appanna Reddy Since Decd By Lrs vs Sri S B Narayana Reddy S/O Late Boda Reddy on 21 January, 2010
Earlier, in the decision reported as S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana
Reddy : (1991)3SCC647 , the Supreme Court had to consider the
impact of an enactment, which conferred a new statutory right, by
way of entitlement to female Hindus, in co- parcenary properties.
Upon resistance to use of the amendment in pending proceedings,
on the ground that the rights were freshly created, and applied
prospectively, and could not apply in pending proceedings, which
were governed by law existing on the date of institution of
proceedings, the Court held that:
Rameshwar Dass And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 13 February, 1987
39, In Rameshwar Dass v. State of Haryana: (1995)IILLJ716SC ,
the Apex Court held: