Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan(With Connected ... on 30 October, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965

attached to any of the fundamental rights. The adjustment between freedom and compulsion, between the rights of individuals and the social interest and welfare must ... rights. [934 E-935 C] (vi) It must not be forgotten that neither the rights in Art. 31 nor those in Art. 19 are absolute

State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh on 16 November, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 913

laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed ... extent there was infraction of his fundamental rights, but at the same time It cannot be forgotten that the underlying purpose of seizing the account

In The Matter Of: Under Article 143 Of The ... vs Unknown on 30 September, 1964

Constitution dealing with the devolution of the property and assets Or the rights, liabilities and obligations of the United State of Rajasthan which had without ... that when the Constitution was being finally hammered out, its framers had forgotten to make any provision for the devolution of the liabilities

have to see when the cause of action arises and that the right to commence an action begins on the same day on which ... right to commence an action arises as soon as the cause of action arises. But it must not be forgotten that election

attack under Art. 31(1) well founded. The article guarantees the right against deprivation of property otherwise than by authority of law. Compelling an employer ... part of minimum wage is not lacking. It must not be forgotten that the fixation of minimum wage was also criticised along the same lines

forgotten that Art. 16(4) is in the nature of an exception or a proviso to Art. 16(1) , which is a fundamental right providing

which was dismissal. It also held that the Industrial Tribunal was not right in relying upon the recommendations of the Go-Slow Committee ... fide. In coming to this conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal seems to have forgotten that it had already dismissed the appeal of the workmen from