Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.36 seconds)The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
Article 348 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shambhu Nath Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 26 April, 1989
The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath's case (supra), stood in the way. However, the problem was overcome by Sinha, J., by holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court had not taken into consideration the relevant provisions of law and the decision was sub silentio.
Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996
Basak, CJ., in Bihar Lohar Uthan Mahasabha's case (supra) found himself unable to approve the decision in Nityanand Sharma's case on the ground that it was not open for the High Court not to follow the decision of the Supreme Court.
Shyamaraju Hegde vs U. Venkatesha Bhat & Ors on 25 September, 1987
In that view of the matter we shall discuss some of the judgments of the Supreme Court particularly judgments subsequent to the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court indicated above, to ascertain whether such Division Bench decisions had directly been overruled by the Supreme Court or whether by necessary implications those Division Bench Judgments had become unsustainable as pointed out in the Shyamaraju v. U.V. Bhat (ibid) and other decisions of Supreme Court." 29. Basak, CJ., then observed in paragraph 9 as follows:
Section 5 in The Official Languages Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Ram Adhin Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 March, 1993
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 by which the schedules to the Order have been substituted, was passed by parliament in English language. Its authoritative Hindi translation made under Section 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 has been published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated the 29th November, 1979 (Annexure B/A). Section 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 is in pari materia with Article 348, (3) of the Constitution. In the Hindi translation 'Lohara' has been printed as 'Lohar' under item No. 41. There is obvious conflict between the original English text and its translation in Hindi. The petitioners have sought to build up their arguments primarily on the basis of Hindi version, which cannot be said to be tenable as said by Brother Sinha, J. I agree with him that in the present case the English version should prevail over the Hindi translation. But I do not agree with the reasoning given by him for the same. It will be wrong to say that English version has always superiority over Hindi version. The superiority of a particular test either in English or in Hindi is to be judged keeping in view as to which of the tow texts in the case of Ram Adhin Singh v. State of Bihar and others 1093 BBCJ 263: 1993 (1) PLJR 637 Pr. 18 by placing reliance on a decision in the case of Rajendra v. Vice- Chancellor, Magadh University, 1984 PLJR.316 wherein L.N. Sharma, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Bench has held that "English translation thorough official cannot override the Hindi text. The English version is the interpretation of the person entrusted with the task of translation. It cannot be equated with the original text.
Rajendra Kumar vs Vice Chancellor, Vikram University And ... on 29 March, 1963
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 by which the schedules to the Order have been substituted, was passed by parliament in English language. Its authoritative Hindi translation made under Section 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 has been published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated the 29th November, 1979 (Annexure B/A). Section 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 is in pari materia with Article 348, (3) of the Constitution. In the Hindi translation 'Lohara' has been printed as 'Lohar' under item No. 41. There is obvious conflict between the original English text and its translation in Hindi. The petitioners have sought to build up their arguments primarily on the basis of Hindi version, which cannot be said to be tenable as said by Brother Sinha, J. I agree with him that in the present case the English version should prevail over the Hindi translation. But I do not agree with the reasoning given by him for the same. It will be wrong to say that English version has always superiority over Hindi version. The superiority of a particular test either in English or in Hindi is to be judged keeping in view as to which of the tow texts in the case of Ram Adhin Singh v. State of Bihar and others 1093 BBCJ 263: 1993 (1) PLJR 637 Pr. 18 by placing reliance on a decision in the case of Rajendra v. Vice- Chancellor, Magadh University, 1984 PLJR.316 wherein L.N. Sharma, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Bench has held that "English translation thorough official cannot override the Hindi text. The English version is the interpretation of the person entrusted with the task of translation. It cannot be equated with the original text.
Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. Ltd. ... vs The Agricultural Produce Market ... on 30 March, 1992
In the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and others v. The Agricultural Product Market Committee and others, 1992 (2) PLJR 253 we have referred to this aspect of the matter wherein we have held as follows: