Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Article 243O in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Rubber Act, 1947
Radhey Shyam Yadav Son Of Sri Nand Lal ... vs District Inspector Of Schools, State Of ... on 8 January, 2008
Thus the view we have taken upholding the judgment of Hoti Lal (supra) relying upon the provisions of Article 243-O(b) and 12-C(1) (a) and 12-C(1)(b) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 stands in direct conflict with the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Vivekanand (supra).
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969 (2) SCC 262)."
Section 5 in The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm And Ors. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii And ... on 21 November, 2002
Shyam Behari Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2005(3) AWC 2189; and
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm, Kalyanpur (M/s) and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. Kanpur and another reported in (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496.
Section 12 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Lakshmi Kant Jhunjhunwala, Partner In ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 13 November, 1964
On reading of the judgment of Radhey Shyam Sharma (supra) we find that there is no reference to the decision of the earlier single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Hoti Lal (supra) wherein the learned single Judge had held the provisions of sub clause (iii-a) of Section 95 (1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to be ultra vires Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India.