Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)

Kanyaka Parmeswari vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 September, 1959

5. The learned Advocate General also referred to the case of M/s. Kanyaka Parmeswari v. Union of India and others AIR 1960 Orissa 103. That was in connection with the validity of Rule 31, Clause (2) of the General Rules. The learned Judge there accepted that that was a rule which had been made under Section 47 of the Railways Act and had been published under the Government of India Notification No. 231 dated the 3rd July, 1902. I must confess that on a reference to that Notification we were not able to find that rule. But whatever that may be, on the assumption that that was a rule which had been made under Section 47 and had undergone the formalities prescribed thereunder in regard to publication, the learned Judge accepted the validity of that rule. That, therefore, can have no application to the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Pallonji N. Metha vs State And Anr. on 1 February, 1952

In other words, apart from the rules that could be made under Section 47 of the Act, a railway company can also make rules for general purposes of day to day administration In support of this, reliance was placed on the case of Pallonji N. Metha v. State, AIR 1952 Bom 421. In that case, a passenger who held a season ticket was found to be subject to a penalty as the season ticket was not in proper form. Rule 39(1) was the basis of that. The question arose whether that rule had been made under Section 47 of the Railways Act. The learned Judge observed that a railway could frame a rule apart from rules under Section 47 if that is not in conflict with the Act, or the rules framed under Section 47 and the rule is reasonable. But such a rule cannot contain any provision in regard to any punishment or penalty. Section 113 of the Railways Act deals with travelling without pass or ticket or with insufficient pass or ticket or beyond authorised distance and penalties have been provided thereunder. I cannot see how that decision can be of any help to the plaintiff here.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1