Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)
Narhari Gir vs The State on 8 November, 1954 cites

Ramaswami Ambalam vs The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments ... on 30 July, 1951

6. I do not propose to discuss these decisions, because in my opinion it is premature at this stage to decide them. I have had occasion to consider the scope of Article 228 of the Constitution of India in 'AIR 1954 Pat 387 (B)'. Following the decision in -- 'Ramaswami Ambalam v. Madraa Hindu Religious Endowments Board', AIR 1952 Mad 20 (F), I pointed out that three conditions must be fulfilled before Article 228 of the Constitution can apply. These three conditions are: (1) that there must be a case pending in a court subordinate to the High Court; (2) the case must involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution or the Government of India Act, 1935; (3) a determination of the question of law must be necessary for the disposal of the case. When these three conditions are fulfilled, the High Court shall withdraw the case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Srinivas Mall Bairoliya vs Emperor on 28 April, 1947

I have already stated that no evidence has yet been taken, and it is not known whether the shiftman in charge and the manager refused to produce the accounts and show the stock of mica under instructions of the directors of the firm. In his report the Inspector has said that on a previous occasion also there was a similar refusal, and the licensees were warned by means of a letter, communicated to them. Therefore, the question whether the act of refusal by the servants of the firm will make the directors responsible cannot be decided purely as an abstract question of law. The circumstances or the instructions under which the refusal was made have to be investigated, and they cannot be investigated unless evidence is given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the decision in -- 'Srinivas Mall v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 135 (A), where their Lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with an offence under Sub-rule 2(b) of B, 81 of the Defence of India Rules. Their Lordships observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs A.F.A. Hamid on 8 April, 1954

Therefore, I am referring very briefly to the points which learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before me in support of his contention that the Bihar. Mica Act, 1947, ceased to be effective after the expiry of one year from 4-3-1948. It is pointed out that on 8-9-1948 the Governor-General gave his assent to a Central Act called the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Act 53 of 1948). Bihar Act I of 1949 was enacted on 3-3-1949; therefore, it was enacted after the coming into force of the Central Act. The contention is that in so far as the Central Act regulated mines and mineral development under Item No. 36 of List 1, the Provincial Legislature ceased to have any power to legislate under Item 23 of List II; and even if they had the power to legislate, that power was Subject to the Central Act with respect to regulation of mines and mineral development. I" need not elaborate this point any further as I had referred to it in great detail in -- 'State of Bihar v. A. F. A. Hamid', AIR 1954 Pat 387 (B).
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next