Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)M/S. Raman & Raman Ltd vs The State Of Madras & Others on 18 February, 1959
12. These decisions receive support from the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court) in Raman and Raman Ltd, v. State of Madras, . It was ruled by their Lordships that the instructions issued by the Government from time to time under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended by the Amendment Act XX of 1948), were in the nature of administrative directions and not rules of law affecting the rights of parties. This judgment also furnishes an answer to the contention of Sri Chowdhary that as these Government Orders were traceable to Arts. 154, 166 and 298 of the Constitution, they should be regarded as 'law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and consequently any action taken by the Government in derogation of these orders could be questioned in a Court of law. Subba Rao, J., dealing with this argument remarked thus:
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Muralidhar And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 October, 1958
In Muralidhar v. State of Audhra Pradesh, , to which one of us was a party, it was decided that every order passed by the Government would not confer any right or create any liability on any individual or groups of individuals, nor could an action be founded on that in a court of law. This is also the view expressed by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., in W. P. No. 582 of 1955, which was confirmed on appeal in W. A. No. 88 of 1958.
Article 220 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
1