Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Orissa Forest Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991
13. We may next refer to S. Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India,(1991) 1 JT417(SC).
Management and Working of the Forests
Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage ... vs R. Rajappa & Others on 21 February, 1978
10. It may be stated that the aforesaid view about the task and duty of the judiciary did not find favour with the House of Lords, as would appear from what has been stated in Paragraph 2 of Bangalore water Supply v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548, by Beg C.J. Lord Simonds, who was one of the members of the House of Lords before whom the aforesaid case had come in appeal, regarded the bold effort of Lord Denning as "a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation". Lord Morten (with whom Lord Goddard entirely agreed) observed : "These heroics are out of place." After noting these views, Beg C.J., however, observed as below in paragraph 3 :--
Section 5 in Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Hameedia Hardware Stores, Represented ... vs B. Mohan Lal Sowcar on 29 March, 1988
12. It may also be stated that the Supreme Court had referred to the aforesaid views of Lord Denning in the case of Hameedia Hardwara Stores v. Mohanlal (1988) 2 SCC 513 : (AIR 1988 SC 1060J, in which the following observations were also made at pages 524 and 525 (of SCC) : (at p. 1067 of AIR) :--
State Of Orissa vs Santosh Kumar And Co. on 6 October, 1982
8. We shall now examine the all important questions posed at the threshold. Now, there is no dispute that Section 56(2-a) of the Forests Act permits confiscation alone, on the Authorised Officer being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed; it does not speak of imposition of fine as a substitute for confiscation. Of course, that section has conferred a discretion in the matter, which would appear from the use of the word 'may' in this connection. It is because of the use of this word that it was held in State of Orissa v. Santosh Kumar, (1983) 56 Cut LT 469 that before ordering confiscation, all the circumstances of the case have to be borne in mind. It is by referring to this decision that in the aforesaid O.J.Cs. fine was imposed in lieu of confiscation as it was felt that the facts of the case did not call for confiscation of the vehicle.