Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Article 246 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bombay University Act, 1974
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vajesingji Joravarsingji Nayak vs The Secretary Of State For India on 26 June, 1924
This argument is not without force, but we do not consider
it necessary to decide this question because even assuming
that the State of Bombay was bound by these obligations, the
question still remains how far the Petitioners before us are
entitled to enforce these obligations against the State of
Bombay. The Petitioners were certainly not parties to these
agreements of merger and letters of guarantee eo nominee.
They could only claim to be parties to the same by reason of
the fact that the Rulers of the erstwhile States did not
negotiate these agreements of merger or obtain the letters
of guarantee only in respect of their personal rights and
properties but also represented the States and their
subjects in the matter of obtaining the same and the subject
of these States were therefore represented by the Rulers and
were entitled to the benefit of whatever obligations were
undertaken by the Dominion of India qua the States and their
subjects. It is therefore arguable that the Rulers
175
of the erstwhile States as also their subjects would be in a
position to enforce these obligations. This position was
however sought to be negatived by relying upon the following
observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council in
Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State for India in
Council(1) at page 360:-
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Moulvi Wazed Ali Khan Pani And Ors. on 22 July, 1921
These observations were quoted with approval in Secretary of
State v. Sardar Rustsam Khan & Others(2) at page 124. It
was therefore urged that it will be the high contracting
parties, viz., the Rulers of the respective States who would
be in a position to enforce these obligations and not the
Petitioners for whose benefit these obligations were
undertaken by the Dominion Government.