Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.42 seconds)Section 68 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Kama Umi Isa Ammal vs Rama Kudumban And Ors. on 6 August, 1952
22. Smt. Amareswari relied mainly on the following three cases: The United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, ; Kama Umi Isa Ammal v. Rama Kudumban, and C.K. Dorai Swamy Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1966) 1 Andh WR 133 for the contention that all the members constituted as the R.T.A. must sit and act.
Perumalla Venkayya vs Batchu Pullayya on 22 January, 1942
In Perumalla Venkayya v. Batchu Pullayya, (1942) 1 Mad LJ 390 = (AIR 1942 Mad 466) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court adopting the principle of the decision in Backwood v. London Chartered Bank of Australia, (1874) 5 PC 92 at p. 108, observed that
"the test to apply in considering whether rules are within the powers of the rule making authority under a statute are (1) whether the rules are reasonable and convenient for carrying the Act into full effect; (2) whether the rules relate to matters arising under the provisions of the Act; (3) whether they relate to matters not in the Act otherwise provided for and (4) whether they are consistent with the provisions of the Act."
Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 April, 1956
31. Further as the Supreme Court observed in Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, repugnance must exist in fact and not depend merely on a possibility.
G.T. Venkataswami Reddy vs Regional Transport Authority, ... on 26 March, 1965
In G.T. Venkataswami Reddy, v. Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, AIR 1966 Mys 55 at p. 59 it was held thus: