Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.31 seconds)The Amending Act, 1897
Estate Duty act, 1953
Section 34 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Kathi Raning Rawat vs The State Of Saurashtra on 27 February, 1952
If the Government in making the selection or classification does not proceed on or follow such policy or principle, it has been held by this court, e.g., in Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, that in such a case, the executive action but not the statute should be condemned as unconstitutional."
Article 134A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
V. Devaki Ammal vs Assistant Controller Of Estate Duty on 10 October, 1972
In our common order, we have upheld the validity of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act of 1953, dissenting from the view expressed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Devaki Ammal v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ([1973] 91 ITR 24), in which case that court had struck down the same provision accepting the very ground urged before us. So far, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not set at rest the controversy on the validity of section 34(1)(c) of the Act on which there is a difference of opinion among the High Courts in the country! Even otherwise, the constitutionality of the provision touches a large number of persons in the country and the interests of the Revenue considerably. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these cases involve a substantial question of law on general importance and the same needs to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We accordingly grant a certificate of fitness to appeal to to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under articles 133(1) and 134A of the Con situation to the petitioners and direct the Registrar to issue them the necessary certificate with expedition.
S. Kodar vs State Of Kerala on 17 April, 1974
In S. Kodar v. State of Kerala, , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has expressed that the economic wisdom of a tax was within the exclusive province of the Legislature. Bearing these principles, it is necessary to examine the challenge of the petitioners based on article 14 of the Constitution.
Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 1954
(i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply and the basis of the classification of such persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or brought to the notice of the court. In determining the validity or otherwise of such a statute, the court has to examine whether such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes such persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute, no matter whether the provisions of the statute are intended to apply only to a particular person or thing or only to a certain class of persons or things. Where the court finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did in Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, , State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318, Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal , V. M. Syed Mohammed Company v. State of Andhra and Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, .
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950
(i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or things to whom its provisions are intended to apply and the basis of the classification of such persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or brought to the notice of the court. In determining the validity or otherwise of such a statute, the court has to examine whether such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes such persons or things grouped together from those left out of the group and whether such differentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute, no matter whether the provisions of the statute are intended to apply only to a particular person or thing or only to a certain class of persons or things. Where the court finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did in Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, , State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318, Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal , V. M. Syed Mohammed Company v. State of Andhra and Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, .