Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.43 seconds)Article 225 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parry & Co. Ltd vs Commercial Employees' ... on 10 April, 1952
This is to me a somewhat surprising conclusion, but
the Advocate-General places great reliance on
two passages in the judgment of Mukherjea J., in Basappa's case (E) and on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the earlier case of -- 'Parry and Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employee's Association, Madras', AIR 1952 SC 179 (K).
Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923
13. I ought also to make some reference to two other cases to which my attention was invited by learned counsel. Reliance was also placed by both sides on the decision of the Privy Council in -- 'Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.', AIR 1923 PC 66 (L), a case in which it was held that the decision of an arbitrator could not be set aside
on the ground that the mistake of law, if mistake there was, made by the arbitrators did not appear on the face of the award.
Dr. Brijendra Swarup vs Election Tribunal At Lucknow And Ors. on 27 September, 1954
The Second case is the unreported decision of a bench of this Court in -- 'Dr. Brijendra Swarup v. Election Tribunal, Lucknow', (since reported In) AIR 1955 All 129 (M).
The New Piecegoods Bazar Co., ... vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay on 26 May, 1950
In the case to which I have just referred both the Court of Appeal in England and the House of Lords declined to construe the words "if the workman leaves a widow" in Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as if they were followed by the words "who is claiming compensation under the Act", despite the surprising conse quences which would follow, on the ground that there was no sufficient context in the Act to qualify the meaning of words which were in themselves plain and unambiguous. It is said that the University Court, when electing the petitioner to the Council, must have taken into account the fact that the petitioner's tenure of office was limited, and the proviso must be se construed as to allow effect to be given to this fact. . Apart from the consideration that there is nothing before me to show that the Court was so influenced, I am of opinion that the proviso cannot be construed in this way. "It is elementary that the primary duty of a Court is to give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention -- "New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay', AIR 1950 SC 165 at p. 168 (O)". In my opinion the words "continues to be a member of that body" mean no more that what they say. The capacity in which the person con-cerned is a member is not material. It is com-mon ground that the petitioner in fact continued, and continues, to be a member of the Court, and in my judgment the condition prescribed by the proviso has been fulfilled. I am bound therefore to hold that the Chancellor's order is erroneous in law.
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
7. Before however I consider these questions it is necessary for me to determine whether the Chancellor acting in the exercise of the. powers conferred upon him by Section 42 of the Act constituted in law a tribunal subject to this Court's superintendence. That will depend upon whether in the exercise of these powers the Chancellor was required to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, for it is not a matter of dispute in this case that the question which he had legal authority to determine was one which affected the rights of the petitioner. Now it has been held by a bench of this Court in -- 'Rameshway Prasad Kedar Nath v. District Magistrate, Kan-pur', AIR 1954 All 144 (A), a decision which is binding on me that since the decision of the Supreme Court in -- 'Province of Bombay v. K. S. Advanf, AIR 1950 SC 222 (B), the test is a comparatively simple one: Did the enactment which conferred authority on the Chancellor to decide the matter in dispute impose on him either specifically or by necessary implication the duty to act judicially?
Section 8 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
With the greatest respect, the Supreme Court in Basappa's case (E) has, in my judgment, declared that the supervisory powers of High Courts in India are no less wide than they are in England.