Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)
Balasaheb Sanap And Ors. vs State Of Mah. And Ors. [Alongwith Writ ... on 15 December, 2004 cites

Dr. D.C. Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986

14. A faint attempt was made to contend that the re-promulgated Ordinance dated 17th November, 2004 was in violation of the constitutional provisions. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and in the case of Srichand Kasera v. State of Bihar . There is no doubt that re-promulgation of Ordinance by Governor without getting them replaced by an Act of legislature may amount to violation of the Constitutional provisions. However, in the instant case, after the promulgation of the first Ordinance the House assembled only once i.e. after declaration of results of general elections and that too for one day only and, therefore, Ordinance was required to be re-promulgated and it is now placed before the Assembly and therefore there is absolutely no merit in the submission that there was violation of constitutional provisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 378 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Bakhtawar Trust & Ors vs M.D. Narayan & Ors on 6 May, 2003

In Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan, , the Supreme Court pointed out that the Parliament and State Legislature have plenary power of legislation within the fields assigned to them and subject to some constitutional limitations, can legislative prospectively as well as retrospectively. This power to make retrospective legislation enables the legislature to validate prior executive and legislative Acts retrospectively after curing the defects that led to their invalidation and thus make ineffective judgments of competent courts declaring the invalidity. A validating Act may even make ineffective judgments and orders of competent courts provided it, by retrospective legislation, removes the cause of invalidity or the basis that had led to those decisions. The test of judging the validity of the amending and validating Act is, whether the legislature enacting the validating Act has competence over the subject matter; whether by validation, the said legislature has removed the defect which the court had found in the previous laws; and whether the validating law is consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981

4. Article 213 of the Constitution confers power upon the Governor to promulgate an Ordinance during the recess of Legislature when he is satisfied that circumstances exit which render it necessary for him to take immediate action. Under Clause (2) of Article 213 an Ordinance promulgated under the said Article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Legislature of the State but every such Ordinance has to be laid before the Legislative Assembly and would cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature or if before the expiration of this period, resolution disapproving it is passed by the Legislative Assembly upon passing of such resolution. Therefore the power of the Governor to issue Ordinances is co-extensive with the power conferred upon the State Legislature. The position under Article 123 of the Constitution is also the same. Dealing with the criticism that Article 123 was an undemocratic provision, Bhagwati J. speaking for the majority of the Constitution bench held in R.K. Garg v. Union of India, :
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 553 - A C Gupta - Full Document
1