Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.38 seconds)
P.G.F. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 July, 2004 cites

Union Of India vs Harbhajan Singh Dhillon on 21 October, 1971

92. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect, that the subject of the legislation in question falls within the residuary clause i.e., Entry 97 of the Union List, in our view merits acceptance. We have concluded, hereinabove, that the pith and substance of the Legislature in question does not fall under the subject covered by Entry 18 of the State List. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject of "investor protection" falls in any other Entry under the State List. Therefore, in view of the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Harbhajan Singh Dhillon's case (supra), Kartar Singh 's case (supra) and Naga Peoples Movement of Human Rights case (supra), namely, that in ease the subject-matter of legislation docs not fall in any entry under the State List, Parliament alone will have the authority to legislate thereon. Since no Entry under the State List and the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, relates to the subject of "investor protection", we find the ascertion on behalf of respondent No. 1, to the effect that Parliament had the right to legislate on the subject in hand, under Article 248 of the Constitution of India, read with Entry 97 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, because Entries 1 to 96 of the Union List also do riot cover the instant subject of legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 223 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next