Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)
Municipal Board, Vanechand Sagarmal ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Three Ors. on 29 September, 1975
cites
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Johari Mal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 July, 1968
17. It has however been further argued by Mr. Parekh that, as has been held in Johari Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , octroi was a tax which was imposed by the S ate Government in its own right and not on behalf of the Board far the Board had according to the decision in Chhaganlal v State of Rajasthan 1964 RLW 494, only the right to collect the tax so that it bad no say in the matter of its imposition or withdrawal. The argument is, however, of no consequence because, as has been show the impugned notification Ex. 19 reminding the notification for the imposition of the tax is invalid.
Hiralal Chhaganlal And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 November, 1967
17. It has however been further argued by Mr. Parekh that, as has been held in Johari Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. , octroi was a tax which was imposed by the S ate Government in its own right and not on behalf of the Board far the Board had according to the decision in Chhaganlal v State of Rajasthan 1964 RLW 494, only the right to collect the tax so that it bad no say in the matter of its imposition or withdrawal. The argument is, however, of no consequence because, as has been show the impugned notification Ex. 19 reminding the notification for the imposition of the tax is invalid.
Sampat Prakash vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr on 10 October, 1968
Reference has also been made by Mr. Parekh to Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. for the proposition that when fee President can in exercise of the powers under Article 370(1) of the Constitution, make orders from time to time, and the power to modify in Clause (d) of Article 370(1) includes the power to subsequently vary, alter, add to or rescind such an order because Article 367 makes Section 21 of the General Clauses Act applicable for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution, there is no reason why it should not be permissible for the State Government to rescind notification Ex. 1 dated April 6, 1973 by inv king Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act. We need nor, however, re-examine this contention of Mr. Parekh for, as has been shown, it was not permissible to exercise the power of rescission under Section 23 of the Rajasthan General Clause Act in the fact and circumstances of this case.
Mohd. Yunus Saleem vs Shiv Kumar Shastri And Others on 25 March, 1974
So also, Mohd. Yunus Saleem v. Shivkumar Shastri and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1218 was a different case because it was permissible in that case to alter the date of the notification by reading Section 21 of the General Clauses Act along with the appropriate provision of the special law.
Ranchhod Zina vs Patankar And Anr. on 30 November, 1965
Much the same is the position in regard to Ranchhod Zina v. Patankar and Anr. on which also reliance has been placed by Mr. Parekh. There is thus no force in the argument which Mr. Parekh has advanced against the view which has prevailed with us in regard to the invalidity of the impugn: d notification Ex. 19 dated February 22, 1975.
State Of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev & Anr on 25 November, 1963
Ram Chandra Dev's case was a case of a grant which was resumable under its terms, and that was why it was held that that the grantee was not entitled to a writ to protect his mere right of possession. There is thus no force in this argument also