Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)State Of Bombay (Now Gujarat) vs Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam on 5 May, 1967
16. The facts of the case of Kasturi-lal (1965-2 Cri LJ 144) (SC) (supra) and of the case before us being almost similar, it would apparently lead to the conclusion that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed but there is one significant fact which, in our view, distinguishes the present case and brings it nearer to the case of Memon Md. AIR 1967 SC 1885 (supra). In the instant case the cause of action of the plaintiff is based upon an order directing return of the goods by a competent court of law.
Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 32 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mst. Vidhyawati And Another on 2 February, 1962
The earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mst.
British India Steam Navigation Co. vs Secretary Of State For India on 8 September, 1910
8. It would thus appear from the various Government of India Acts that Article 300 of the Constitution of India, so far as it provides for the matters to which the suits may relate, refers back to the position obtaining before the Government of India Act, 1858. In other words, in order to determine whether a suit of a particular nature would lie against the Government, it is to be seen whether the suit is of such a character as would have lain against the East India Company prior to the Government of India Act, 1858. Answer to this question was given by Sir Barnes Peacock, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Calcutta in the case of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary for State in India reported in (1868-69) 5 Bom HCR Appendix A; P. 1 by laying down two basic principles, namely:
Section 176 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
1