Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 100 (1.05 seconds)The State Of Bombay And Another vs The United Motors (India) Ltd. And ... on 30 March, 1953
(India) Ltd. (supra). We are, therefore,Of the opinion, for
reasons stated above, that the High Court *as not right in
holding that the petition under article 226 was misconceived
or was not maintainable. It will, therefore, have to be
examined and decided on merits.
Government of India Act, 1935
Article 301 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 100 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
State Of Travancore-Cochin And Others vs Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factoryand ... on 8 May, 1953
by the previous decision of this Court just referred to and
that if that case lays down the correct rule of law, this
appeal should be dismissed. We are also agreed that the
language of article 286 of the Constitution on which the
case depends is not felicitous and free from vagueness, with
the result that the interpretation of that article is not
free from doubt and difficulty. The very fact that in the
case referred to, as also in the later decision of this
Court reported in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha
Vilas Cashew Nut Factory(1) involving the construction of
article 286, the Court was divided in its opinion shows that
the interpretation of the articles in question is by no
means easy. The fact that the Court is sharply divided in
the present case also emphasizes the difficulty.