Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (2.05 seconds)Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala on 9 April, 1957
Under Article 11 Parliament is authorized to enact law and it is conceded that the writ petitioner is authorized to enact law and it is conceded that the writ petitioner is not covered by the enactment. It follows that what are called corporate persons are not citizens according to Part II of the Constitution and therefore the writ petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Article 19. I, have, however, weighty judicial pronouncements against my conclusions. One is in State of Bombay v. Chamarbaugwala ), wherein the learned Judges have given the benefit of the article to a corporation subject to its directors and shareholders being citizens of India. But if the corporate personality be different to those of the directors and shareholders, I fail to understand how the latter's being citizens can be treated as relevant.
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 6 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Others(And ... on 8 January, 1958
Reliance was also placed on Express Newspapers, Ltd. v. Union of India , wherein some of the petitioners were corporate personalities, who were allowed to press their petition without any objection being raised about their not being entitled to the fundamental rights contained in Article 19. The case is no authority as to when corporate personalities acquire citizenship and thus become entitled o the benefit of Article 19.