Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.68 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 301 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.R. Enterprises Etc, Etc vs State Of U.P. And Grs. Etc: Etc on 7 May, 1999
22. As regards the notification issued being arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate is concerned, the submission made by the learned Advocate General is that the notification is only a ministerial act reflecting the policy decision of the State of Karnataka and the said decision also forming part of the budget presented for the year 2007-08, such policy decision of the State, more so, when it forms a part of the budget, is not subjected to judicial review and the notification as such, having been issued subsequent to the budget proposal being approved in both the houses of the legislature, it is not possible to take the view that the said action of the State is arbitrary or unreasonable or for that matter disproportionate.
Section 4 in The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala on 9 April, 1957
39. As far as the submission raised by the petitioners' Counsel with regard to H. Anraj's case-II 1996 (1) SCC 414 is concerned, the Supreme Court did refer to the said case also at paragraph-49 of its judgment and it is only after referring to the decisions reported in AIR 1957 SCC 699 (State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala), (State of Haryana v. Suman Enterprises) and several other decisions of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, law was laid down as above in B.R. Enterprises's case. Such being the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision upholding the entire 1998 Act to be valid and so also Section 5 in particular, being found to be not ultra vires, the constitution question of this Court once again embarking upon the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the 1998 Act or for that matter any of the provisions of 1998 Act, does not arise. It will be improper far all the other Courts not to act upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Mizoram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 January, 2003
78. At this juncture, learned Counsel Sri. Shashikiran Shetty for some of the petitioners prayed that in view of the decision in Suman Enterprises case, the operation of the judgment be stayed for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to prefer an appeal and further, the benefit extended by the High Court of Judicature in the case of State of Mizoram v. State of Tamilnadu be extended.