Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 268 in Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960
In the case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Rules must be consistent with the provisions of the Statute.
Mangilal And Ors. vs Collector Of Bhilwara And Ors. on 11 October, 1957
In the case of Mangilal v. Collector of Bhilwara, , it was found that Rajasthan Panchayat
Act did not make any provision providing for dealing with the election disputes. However, Rules were framed (Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules) providing for adjudicating the disputes relating to elections. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that even if there is no provision dealing with election disputes in the Act, the Rules framed for carrying out the purposes of the Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Thus, in this the case rules relating to motion of no-confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/President of Mandal Parisad or Vice-Chairman/ Chairman of Zilla Parishad under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 245 framed by the Government under G.O. Ms. No. 137 dated 27-3-1997 cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the rule making power of the Government under Section 268 of the Act.
Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019
Ajay Canu vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 August, 1988
In the case of Ajay Canu v. Union of India, , cited by the
learned counsel for Respondent No.5, the Supreme Court held that it was well established proposition of law that where a specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generality of the power already specified, the particular power is only illustrative and it did not in any way restrict the general power. In the case before us this question would not arise as may he seen presently.
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
The Central Bank Of India vs Their Workmen(And Connected Appeals) on 12 May, 1959
In the case of Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen, , the Supreme Court has held that a statutory rule cannot enlarge the meaning of the section and that if a rule goes beyond what the section contemplates, the rule must-yield to the statute.
1