Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Mithan Lal vs The State Of Delhi & Another(With ... on 7 April, 1958
The effect of extending a Provincial Legislation to Part 'C' State like Delhi was considered in Mithan Lal v. State of Delhi and other wherein it was laid down the limitation and distribution of power between the Centre and States has no applicability to Part 'C' states when a notification is issued by the appropriate. Government extending the law of a Part 'A' State to a part 'C' State and the law so extended; derives its force in the State to which it is extended from S. 2 of the Part 'C' States (Laws) Act enacted by Parliament. The result of a notification so issued is that the provisions of the law which is extended become incorporated by reference in the Act itself and therefore a tax imposed there under is a tax' imposed by Parliament, In that case Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was extended to Delhi.Now this being aprovincial Legislation it could only legislate with regard to tax on supply of material in building contract. The question was whether when.this Act was extended to Delhi by the Central Legislature the same restriction of Provincial Legislation will be read into it. It was held that as the extension was made by the Parliament it was within its competence to impose a tax on. supply of material in building contract and impose it under the name of sales tax. On .the same analogy even if the Provincial Legislature of punjab was not competent to frame legislation with regard to moveable property that limitation and restriction will not be read in 1947 Act including the definition of moveable property when the said Act has been extended to Delhi province under powers given by Section 100(A) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The definition of the property will thus have to include both.moveble and immoveable property so far as its applicability in Delhi is concerned. The result therefore of the extension of 1947 Act to Delhi was as if the 1947 Act was passed by the Central Legislature and as the Central Legislature could undoubtedly have legislated with respect to the moveable property of evacuees the argument based on the competence of Punjab Leislature to pass such a legislation is extraneous to the present controversy.
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Laws Act, 1912
Durga Parshad vs Custodian Of Evacuee Property 'P' ... on 10 February, 1960
(10) The next challenge is based on the decision in Durga Parshad v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others holding that 1947 Act was valid legislation only with the regard to immoveable property as Punjab Legislature could not legislate with regard to moveable property. The court found that there was no provision to legislate with respect to the evacuee but the court interpreted Entry 21 in List Ii that is land and held that 1947 Act could be legislated with reference to immoveable property. It therefore chose to define the property in the Punjab Act only to mean the immoveable property. Mr. Parikh seeks to urge that as the Full Bench of Punjab High Court has held that 1947 Act was valid so far as immoveable property was concerned it cannot be invoked in the present because the copyright would be moveable property. If the question had arisen in the State of Punjab the matter would have had some validity. The learned single judge has observed that 1947 Act could be considered to have been validly passed under Entry 9 and 10 of the concurrent list, 7th Schedule of 1935 Act. I however do not wish to express any opinion on this aspect because frankly I have my reservations whether the legislation could be covered under Entries 9 and 10 in List III. Howsoever broadly the entries may be interpreted it would, I feel, be rather hazardous to interpret Entry 9 (Trust and Trustees) and Entry 10 (Contracts, partnership) so as to cover legislation dealing with evacuees. This hesitation is strengthened because of Entry 17 in List I (Federal Legislative List) dealing with Admission into and emigration and expulsion from India... which entry could have permitted the Central Legislature to frame a law with regard to the rights and other incidental matters concerning those persons like evacuees who migrated from this country. This means that the Central Legislature could have framed legislation with regard to evacuees including their properties, both moveable and immoveable Definition of Property in 1947Act, if it was a Central Legislation could thus include moveable property including rights in copyright. Section 100 of the Government of India Act, 1935 empowered Federal Legislature to make law with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I of the 7th Schedule. As the Central Legislature could pass a law with respect to Province of Delhi the limitation which a Provincial Legislature had with respect to evacuee property would not beapplicable. Thus if the Central Legislature had therefore passed an Act for Delhi the same could not be objected to on the ground of legislative in- competency. The argument of Mr. Parikh is that as the 1947 Act has been extended to Delhi by a notification issued under. Delhi Laws Act, 1912 from 7.10.1948, 1947 Act could not cover movecable property even extended to Delhi. Now Delhi was Chief Commissioner's Province vide Section 94 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 100(A) empowered the Federal Legislature to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in Provincial Legislative list for .Delhi. Thus the powers of Federal Legislature to legislate for Delhi is undoubted.
Section 2 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Section 94 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Transfer of Property Act, 1977
1