Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala on 9 April, 1957
Therefore if the Mysore Legislature had the
power, which in our opinion, it had and it had
not surrendered its power to Parliament which,
in our opinion, it had not then it cannot be
said that the imposition of the tax is a piece
of colourable legislation and is on that
ground unconstitutional. It will be opposite
to quote at this stage the observations of
Das, C.J., in the State of Bombay v. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwala (1):-
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 252 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bombay University Act, 1974
R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India(With Connected ... on 9 April, 1957
Thus the Central Act is with respect to betting and gambling
under entry 34 of List II and the taxing sections of the
Mysore Act are with respect to a tax on betting and gambling
under entry 62. It is also instructive to note that
Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in B. M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. The
Union of India (2) in construing the language of the
resolution was of the opinion that the use of the word
"control and regulation" was requisite in the case of
gambling and as regards regulation of competitions involving
skill mere regulation would have been sufficient.
In view of our finding that by passing the resolution the
States did not surrender their power of taxation it cannot
be said that al. (2) of Art. 252
(1) [1957] S.C.R. 874, 929.
Deep Chand vs The State Of Uttar Pradeshand ... on 15 January, 1959
This is in accord
with the view taken in Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others(2), i.e., the doctrine of eclipse could
be invoked in the case of a 'law which was valid when made
but was rendered invalid by a supervening constitutional
inconsistency. This
(1).(1947) L. R. 74 I.A. 12,19.