Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 119 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959
In Raja Harisingh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 Raj 117, the validity of Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, was challenged on grounds similar to those raised in the Supreme Court in (S) AIR 1955 SC 795 (supra). Rejecting these grounds of attack Wanchoo, C, J., said that it was not necessary that the laws should be exactly the same; that so long as there were almost similar laws in other areas the discrimination could not be said to arise; that the Marwar Land Revenue Act was an ameliorative legislation; and that if similar progressive laws did not exist in some States which had been integrated to form the State of Rajasthan, it would be wrong to declare such progressive and ameliorative measures invalid.
Shri Kishan Singh And Others vs The State Of Rajasthan And Others on 27 September, 1955
10. The next case to be noted is Kishan Singh v. Rajasthan State, AIR 1955 SC 795 where the validity of Sections 81 to 86 of the Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, was challenged.
Raja Harisingh And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 10 November, 1953
In Raja Harisingh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 Raj 117, the validity of Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, was challenged on grounds similar to those raised in the Supreme Court in (S) AIR 1955 SC 795 (supra). Rejecting these grounds of attack Wanchoo, C, J., said that it was not necessary that the laws should be exactly the same; that so long as there were almost similar laws in other areas the discrimination could not be said to arise; that the Marwar Land Revenue Act was an ameliorative legislation; and that if similar progressive laws did not exist in some States which had been integrated to form the State of Rajasthan, it would be wrong to declare such progressive and ameliorative measures invalid.
Rao Manohar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 October, 1953
The learned Chief Justice distinguished the case of Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1953 Raj 22--which was considered in appeal by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 297--by saying that in that case there was no justification for merely taking over the administration of Jagirs in one part of the State and leaving them to the Jagirdars in the other parts of the State.
Madan Singh And Ors. vs Collector Sikar on 16 April, 1953
In Madan Singh's case, AIR 1954 Raj 104 also "Wanchoo, C. J. referred to the requirement stated by Bradley, J. in (1880) 101 US 22 (supra) as to the diversity being based with due "regard to the welfare of all classes within the particular territory or jurisdiction".
Ramjilal vs Income-Tax Officer, Mohindargarh on 12 January, 1951
The learned Judges of the Kerala High Court also referred to Ramjilal v. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97. But, as pointed Out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 297, that case is distinguishable on the ground that it proceeded upon the principle that "pending proceedings should be concluded according to the law applicable at the time when the rights or liabilities accrued and the proceeding commenced was a reasonable law founded upon a reasonable classification of the assessees which is permissible under the equal protection clause". We do not find anything in the decision of the Kerala High Court to support the contention of the learned Advocate General that the justification for the continuance of the impugned Act lay in the very fact of its continuance by the M.P. Adaptation of. Laws Order, 1956, and Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, after the coming into existence of the new State.
The State Of Rajasthan vs Rao Manohar Singhji on 15 March, 1954
The result of these provisions is that the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, is today in force in the territory comprising of the former Bhopal State- There is no law imposing income-tax and super-tax on agricultural income in any other part of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The contention put forward by Shri Kolah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company, is that the Act applies only to what was prior to its inclusion the State of Bhopal; that the present State of Madhya Pradesh comprises of Bhopal and the territories of other States mentioned in Section 9 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; and that as the Act, as it stands, imposes tax on the agricultural income of persons in one area of the State and not the whole of it, it has become discriminatory and void. Learned counsel placed reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Manohar Singhji, AIR 1954 SC 297.