Citation network
Pulusam Krishna Murthy Vs. T. Sujan Kumar and ors.
Cites for this judgment
- Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Nov 23, 2001
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
AIR 1994 SC 2178Search
-
AIR 1969 SC 1Search
-
AIR 1973 SC 980Search
-
AIR 1982 SC 298Search
-
AIR 1964 SC 1791Search
-
(1997) 7 SCC 209Search
-
(2001) 1 SCC 168Search
-
2001 (3) SCC 366Search
-
Salyanarayana Reddy v. StateSearch
-
Mr. P. v. RamanaSearch
-
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 20239 of 2000 would contend that the object of v. ScheduleSearch
-
Ramadoss v. UnionSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Indra Sawhney v. UnionSearch
-
for the said proposition.14. The learned Advocate-General would contend that the power conferred by Paragraph 5(1) of v. ScheduleSearch
-
The learned Counsel would submit that the power conferred on the Governor of a State under Paragraph 5 (1) of v. ScheduleSearch
-
Apex Court in Samatha (supra). He would further contend that the non-obstante clause contained in Paragraph 5(1) of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
Indra Sawhney v. UnionSearch
-
this sub-Paragraph may be given to have retrospective effect.32. Can it be said that the power under Para 5(1) of the v. scheduleSearch
-
statute enacted by the Parliament or the State Legislature.38. Having regard to the terminology used in Para 5(1) of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
provision in that behalf is made by or under act of appropriate Legislature. Thus, for the purpose of Paragraph 5 of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
also the legislations made by the Governor in exercise of his power conferred upon him by sub-para (1) of Para 5 of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
provisions of Constitution of India and thus the same principle would apply to a law within the meaning of Para 5 of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
a-vis the other acts whether containing non-obstante clause or not. The non-obstante clause contained in Para 5(1) of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
Satyanarayana Reddy v. StateSearch
-
of A.P. (supra). In that case, it has clearly been held that any notification issued under Clause (1) of Para 5 of v. ScheduleSearch
-
legislative power of the Governor has to be exercised having regard to the parameters of sub-para (1) of Para 5 of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
In B.S. Yadav v. StateSearch
-
of the Constitution.51. In Keshavananda Bharathi, v. StateSearch
-
Minerva Mills v. UnionSearch
-
(See L. Chandra Kumar v. UnionSearch
-
of the Constitution.55. In Dadi Jagannadham v. JammuluSearch
-
Ms. Mohini Jain v. StateSearch
-
Unnikrishnan v. StateSearch
-
See Ajit Singh-II v. StateSearch
-
the same principle would not apply to the notification issued in terms of Para 5(1) of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
in the entire State. Can the Government in exercise of its legislative power under Clause (1) of Para-5 of the v. ScheduleSearch
-
Salyanarayana Reddy v. StateSearch
-
Stale of Kerala v. N.MSearch
-
Mr. P. v. RamanaSearch
-
Ram Kirpal v. StateSearch
-
P. Rami Reddy v. StateSearch
-
Ramadoss v. UnionSearch
-
Indra Sawhney v. UnionSearch
-
Satyanarayana Reddy v. StateSearch
-
In B.S. Yadav v. StateSearch
-
In AC Poudyal v. UnionSearch
-
of the Constitution.51. In Keshavananda Bharathi, v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial