Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (3.97 seconds)Section 5 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
B.K. Srinivasan & Another Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 January, 1987
In the event the statute does not contain any prescription and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence in the matter, the legislation will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the Official Gazette (B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka) [(1987) 1 SCC 658]. Admittedly, the "guidelines" were not gazetted."
Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951
23. The Court in Harla v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1951 SC 467 : 1952 Cri LJ 54] noticed the decision in Johnson v. Sargant & Sons [(1918) 1 KB 101 : 87 LJ KB 122] and particularly the following : (AIR pp. 468-69, para 11) "11. The principle underlying this question has been judicially considered in England.
Brij Bhukhan And Ors. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 November, 1956
A somewhat similar issue arose for consideration before the Full Bench of the Court in Brij Bhushan Chaudhary and others Vs. State of U.P. and others10. One of the issues which arose for consideration was the date from which the Foreign Liquor 3rd Amendment Rules, 2002 and the Beer 2nd Amendment Rules 2002 would be deemed to have come into force. The Full Bench noted that although these rules were ordered to be published by the Governor on 14 March 2002 they came to be actually published only on 3 April 2002. These rules also were to come into force "at once". This aspect was dealt with and answered by the Full Bench in Paragraph 61 in the following terms:
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Klshori Lal Minocha on 21 December, 1979
The decision rendered in State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal Minocha, AIR 1980 SC 680, Vijay Prakash Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 1984 UPTC 178 and State of U.P. v. M/s. National Industrial Corporation (of the Supreme Court) decided on 17-9-1996 cited by Mr. Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners do not apply to the facts of the instant case. That apart, taking into consideration the fact that that said Rules were notified in the official Gazette of 3-4-2002 and as such, came into force on that date, the same cannot have any effect in view of the fact that no licence was, in fact, granted on the basis of advertisement for holding the lottery except that direction made in the interim order was carried out and licence was granted by way of interim arrangement. The fact that the State Government proceeded to hold lottery on 26-3-2002 is only step towards grant of licence but no licence was, in fact, issued on that basis and as such, there was no illegality even assuming that the Rules did not come into existence with effect from 26-3-2002. Both the questions 3(a) and 3(b) are answered accordingly."
Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 2014
(emphasis supplied)
It is this principle enunciated in the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court which has been reiterated on more than one occasion thereafter. The principle so enunciated was again followed and applied in B.K. Srinivasan Vs. State of Karnataka7 as well as Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India8. In the latter judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows: