Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.72 seconds)Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sri Jagadguru Kari ... vs Commissioner Of Hindu Religious ... on 8 May, 1964
In Sri Jagadguru Nari Basava Rajendra Swami of Gavimutt
v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments,
Hyderabad,(1) Gajendragadkar C. J. observed thus regarding
the aforesaid passage
"With respect, we are not prepared to hold
that these observations were intended to lay
down an unqualified proposition of law that
even if a citizen was,' deprived of his
fundamental rights by a valid scheme framed
under a valid law at a time when the Constitu-
tion was not in force, the mere fact that such
a scheme would continue to operate even after
the 26th January 1950, would expose it to the
risk of having to face a challenge under Art.
Guru Datta Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 24 April, 1961
In Kuru Datta Sharma v. State of Bihar (2)
Shanti Sarup's case(3) was distinguished in
the following words
"We are unable to construe these observations
as affording, any assistance to the
appellant..........
Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi vs The Union Of India And Another on 21 October, 1954
We may mention that in
Laxmanappa Hanumantappa Jamkhandi v. The Union of India &
Anr. (2), Mahajan, C. J. observed as follows :-
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
1952 and we
are unable to believe that the petitioners did not come to
know all these facts till 1961. But even assuming that the
petitioners came to know all these facts only in Dec. 1961,
even then there has been inordinate delay in presenting the
present petition. The fact that Jaisinghani's case(1) was
pending before the High Court and later in this Court is
also, no excuse for the delay in resenting the present
petition. In the result, the petition fails and is
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.