Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
State Of Bihar vs Pirthi Chand Lall Choudhary on 17 August, 1963 cites

Chetandas Gulabchand vs The State Of Bihar on 14 April, 1958

In Chetandas Gulabchand v. The State of Bihar, AIR 7958 Pat 512, decided by my learned brother sitting with S.C. Prasad, J., the State had ratified certain action of the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa in the matter of requisition and acquisition of the property of the plaintiff under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. In point of fact, it was held that the seizure was not wrongful and as such not tortious. That it was observed by my learned brother in that case that had the seizure been found to be tortious, he would have held the State liable "because the act of the servant in the present case is one which was ratified by the State as it refused to pay compensation to the plaintiff or to state that the Additional District Magistrate, Saharsa, was personally liable". I would, therefore, overrule the contention of the learned Government Advocate.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singhof ... on 27 May, 1952

15. When the appeal was first taken up for hearing before us, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appearing in support of the appeal, assailed the correctness of the decision of the Special Bench in ILR 29 Pat 790 : (AIR 1950 Pat 392), and urged that whatever doubt may have arisen as to the validity of the State Management Act, had been set at rest by the insertion of Article 31-A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act on the 18th June, 1951, as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, on the 27th April, 1955. Further it was contended "by Mr. Sinha before us that the authority of the Special Bench decision had been weakened by certain subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in the cases of the State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252, Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459, Raghubir Singh v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1959 SC 475, Raghubar Sarup v. State of U. P., AIR 1959 SC 909 and Guru Dalta Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1684. Mr. S.N. Dutt appearing for the Plaintiff-Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the decision of the Special Bench was correct and not having been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court, it was of binding effect. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we felt that the Special Bench decision needed reconsideration in the light of certain pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in some of the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, by our order dated the 24th July, 1962, we referred the question to a larger Bench, and the matter came to be heard by a Bench of five Judges. The Full Bench came to the following conclusions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 1173 - Full Document

Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs The State Of Bombay(And Connected ... on 18 November, 1958

15. When the appeal was first taken up for hearing before us, Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, appearing in support of the appeal, assailed the correctness of the decision of the Special Bench in ILR 29 Pat 790 : (AIR 1950 Pat 392), and urged that whatever doubt may have arisen as to the validity of the State Management Act, had been set at rest by the insertion of Article 31-A in the Constitution of India by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act on the 18th June, 1951, as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, on the 27th April, 1955. Further it was contended "by Mr. Sinha before us that the authority of the Special Bench decision had been weakened by certain subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in the cases of the State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252, Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1959 SC 459, Raghubir Singh v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1959 SC 475, Raghubar Sarup v. State of U. P., AIR 1959 SC 909 and Guru Dalta Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1684. Mr. S.N. Dutt appearing for the Plaintiff-Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the decision of the Special Bench was correct and not having been expressly overruled by the Supreme Court, it was of binding effect. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we felt that the Special Bench decision needed reconsideration in the light of certain pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in some of the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, by our order dated the 24th July, 1962, we referred the question to a larger Bench, and the matter came to be heard by a Bench of five Judges. The Full Bench came to the following conclusions:
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 215 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next