Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 88 in Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Syed Bashiruddin Ashraf vs Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis-E-Awqaf And ... on 23 November, 1964
(ii) In Syed Bashiruddin Ashraf Vs. Bihar Subai Sunni
Majlis-e-awqaf & Ors. (AIR 1965 (SC) 1206), Hon'ble
the Supreme Court has also held that "... ... ... if the object
of statute is not to inflict punishment but to protect the
public from the activities of undesirable persons, who bear
the stigma of a conviction or misconduct on their
character, the conviction or misconduct of such person
before the operation of statute may be relied upon."
(43) But here lies a basic distinction, inasmuch the
disqualification before us is a consequence of number of children
exceeding two; whereas in the cases above referred the
disqualification involved was offence or misconduct. Hence, the
present situation cannot be equated with the disqualification which
was under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in
which it has been laid down that the disqualification can be
prescribed keeping in mind the past conduct or past incidents.
(44) No law enacted so far restricts or regulaties a citizen's
right to procreate. Giving birth to a third child not being a
misconduct, cannot be made a disqualification with a date much
anterior to a date, when such disqualification or ineligibility was
prescribed for the first time.
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Bangalore vs M/S. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd on 15 November, 2006
(54) It is a settled proposition of law that a clarificatory
amendment, which has been introduced to remedy an omission or
cure a lacuna in the basic statute, can apply retrospectively, but
an amendment, which creates obligation or which is regressive in
nature, has to apply prospectively, as has been observed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd.,
reported in (2006)12SCC448 and so also in the case of
Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Guntur, reported in (2006)12SCC452.
(55) Contention of Ms. Rekha Borana that this amendment
has been introduced in a bid to create awareness about family
planning cannot be countenanced. Given the fact that Safai
Karmcharis belong to the lowest and deprived strata of the
Society, the justification of sensitization towards population
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:14:41 PM)
(27 of 28) [CW-16572/2018]
explosion, put forth by the State turns out to be a farce,
particularly when they have not provided such ineligibility qua
other Municipal employees.
Suchitra Components Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Guntur on 17 January, 2007
(54) It is a settled proposition of law that a clarificatory
amendment, which has been introduced to remedy an omission or
cure a lacuna in the basic statute, can apply retrospectively, but
an amendment, which creates obligation or which is regressive in
nature, has to apply prospectively, as has been observed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd.,
reported in (2006)12SCC448 and so also in the case of
Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Guntur, reported in (2006)12SCC452.
(55) Contention of Ms. Rekha Borana that this amendment
has been introduced in a bid to create awareness about family
planning cannot be countenanced. Given the fact that Safai
Karmcharis belong to the lowest and deprived strata of the
Society, the justification of sensitization towards population
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:14:41 PM)
(27 of 28) [CW-16572/2018]
explosion, put forth by the State turns out to be a farce,
particularly when they have not provided such ineligibility qua
other Municipal employees.