Court : Supreme Court of India
..... at page 320 65 see also amarinder singh v special committee, punjab vidhan sabha, (2010) 6 scc113 krishna kumar singh v state of bihar, (2017) 3 scc1 state of himachal pradesh v. satpal saini, 2017(2) scale29266 granville austin (supra note 3), at page 145 43 ministers. this was explained by dr b r ..... for each state governed by the law. it provided for the establishment of legislative assemblies for the states of ajmer, bhopal, coorg, delhi, himachal pradesh and vindhya pradesh. the chief commissioner was entrusted with the power, under section 8(2), to prorogue and dissolve the assembly. section 12 conferred upon the chief commissioner ..... required in the administrative structure obtaining in the chief commissioner's provinces, including delhi. the committee recommended that delhi, ajmer, bhopal, bilaspur, coorg, himachal pradesh including cutch, manipur, tripura and such other provinces may be so designated as shall be the lt. governor's province. the report was debated in constituent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. we pass a similar order in this case. xxx xxx xxx 21. in uttar pradesh the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp the gram sabha lands either with connivance of the consolidation authorities, or by forging orders purported to ..... order (supreme court monitoring dated committee v. mussoorie development authority [ wp (c) no 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11- 1996]. ). the earlier decision of this court in state of bihar v. banshi ram modi [(1985) 3 scc643 has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. we consider it necessary to the reiterate decisions of this court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... respondents to vacate the land they had illegally occupied, after taking away the material of the house. we pass a similar order in this case. xxx xxx xxx 21. in uttar pradesh the u.p. consolidation of holdings act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp the gram sabha lands either with connivance of the consolidation authorities, or by forging orders purported to ..... order (supreme court monitoring dated committee v. mussoorie development authority [ wp (c) no 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11- 1996]. ). the earlier decision of this court in state of bihar v. banshi ram modi [(1985) 3 scc643 has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. we consider it necessary to the reiterate decisions of this court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... , whether the law laid down in the case of m.p.sharma and others vs. satish chandra, district magistrate delhi & ors., air1954sc300and kharak singh vs. state of uttar pradesh & ors. air1963sc1295insofar as it relates to the "right to privacy of an individual is correct and second, whether "right to privacy" is a fundamental right under part iii ..... to life enshrined in article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. it means something much more than just physical survival. in kharak singh v. state of uttar pradesh, subba rao j.quoted with approval the following passage from the judgment of field j.in munn v. illinois to emphasize the quality of life covered by article ..... right to pollution free water and air. subhash kumar v. state of bihar (1991) 1 scc598at para 7; (16) the right to speedy trial. a.r. antulay v. r.s. nayak (1992) 1 scc225at para 86; (17) the right against illegal detention. joginder kumar v. state of uttar pradesh (1994) 4 scc260at paras 20 and 21; (18) the right .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... , where the development of the industrial infrastructure along the expressway for the overall betterment of the region and further for the industrialisation of the otherwise backward region of uttar pradesh, was considered as a policy. in this judgment again, the court has extensively considered the question as to whether and under what circumstances, the acquisition could be ..... in view of the finding that it is a question of expansion of dockyard for defence purpose, it is a public purpose. 65. in sharda devi v. state of bihar (2003) 3 scc128this court said: (scc p. 144, para27) 27 the power to acquire by the state the land owned by its subjects hails from the right ..... purpose for it benefits a large class of people and not one or two individuals.71. in state of bihar v. kameshwar singh air1952sc252a constitution bench of this court was examining vires of certain provisions of the bihar land reforms act, 1950 and other state laws in the context of article 31 of the constitution (as then .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
..... and ors. vs. delhi administration (1968) 2 scr 455, puran singh and ors. vs. the state of punjab (1975) 4 scc 518 and ram rattan and ors. vs. state of uttar pradesh (1977) 1 scc 188. the authorities need not be multiplied. in munshi ram and ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a ..... the constitution, in favour of the poor castes and downtrodden persons, included in the schedules to articles 341 and 342 of the constitution of india. 26. in state of madhya pradesh vs. babu lal and ors. [1977 (2) scc 435] the provisions contained in section 165(6) of m.p. land revenue code, 1959 came up for consideration before this ..... municipal corporation of delhi vs. gurunam kour (1989 (1) scc 101) and state of u.p. vs. synthetics and chemicals limited (1991 4 scc 139) and arneethdas vs. state of bihar (2000 (5) scc 488) including referring to article 141 of the constitution of india on the principle of sub-silentio, same was followed by the division bench of this court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... ), first and foremost pointed out, that the bar association of india represents the high court bar association, kolkata (west bengal), the awadh bar association, lucknow (uttar pradesh), the madras bar association, chennai (tamil nadu), the supreme court bar association, new delhi, the gujarat high court advocates association, gandhinagar (gujarat), the advocates association ..... kesavananada bharati case10, the indira nehru gandhi case56, the sankalchand himatlal sheth case5, asif hameed v. state of jammu and kashmir[58]., state of bihar v. bihar distillery limited[59]., and bhim singh v. union of india13, it was submitted, that this court had recognized, that the concept of checks ..... being discussed corresponding to present article 124, four members, prof. shibban lal saksena and prof. k.t. shah, who represented the united provinces of bihar and mr. b. pocker sahib and mr. mahboob ali beig sahib, who represented madras provinces suggested amendments to article 103, the relevant portions of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... in (1976)3 scc 252; 8. p.sirajuddin, etc. v/s. state of madras etc. reported in (1970)1 scc 595; 9. lalita kumari v/s. government of uttar pradesh and ors. reported in (2014)2 scc 1; 10. babu rao chinchanasur v/s. state by lokayuktha police, bangalore urban district, bangalore and another reported in 2013(4) kccr ..... involved in a case of corruption of offering bribes to some mps. cases of disproportionate assets have been registered against former chief ministers of tamil nadu, sikkim, himachal pradesh, bihar etc. the list is unending. and yet, there definitely are innumerable other cases of corruption by politicians which could never see the light of the day. mps and ..... (8) scc 742; 58. faiz murataza ali vs. commissioner of income tax reported in 2013 scc online del. 717; 59. heavy engineering mazdoor union v/s/ state of bihar and others. reported in 1969 (1) scc 765; 60. western coalfields limited vs. special area development authority, korba and another reported in 1982 (1) scc 125; 61. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... public order" (at page 836). reasonable restrictions:23. this court has laid down what "reasonable restrictions" means in several cases. in chintaman rao v. the state of madhya pradesh, [1950]. s.c.r. 759, this court said: "the phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be ..... contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the state. this definition was further refined in dr. ram manohar lohia v. state of bihar & ors., [1966]. 1 s.c.r. 709, where this court held: "it will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this court (earlier ..... repeated injunctions of this court that restrictions on the freedom of speech must be couched in the narrowest possible terms. for example, see, kedar nath singh v. state of bihar, [1962]. supp. 2 s.c.r. 769 at 808 -809. in point of fact, judgments of the constitution bench of this court have struck down sections .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 41. another notable challenge to the death penalty was considered by the supreme court in the judgment reported at (1979) 3 scc646 rajendra prasad v. state of uttar pradesh. writing for the bench, justice krishna iyer in para 7 cautioned that guided missiles, with lethal potential, in unguided hands, even judicial, is a grave risk where ..... the punishment for other convictions including two life sentences, shall run consecutively. (ref. : (2013) 3 scc52: (2013) 2 scale505 sanaullah khan v. state of bihar wherein two life sentences stood imposed.) the court is thereby able to ensure adequacy of the punishment for grievous offences.234. to conclude, therefore, so far as sentencing ..... rajesh mahajan, learned additional standing counsel for the state which has been reported at (2013) 3 scc52: (2013) 2 scale505 sanaullah khan v. state of bihar. in this case, the appellant was found culpable for three offences of murder and was sentenced to death by the trial court. the supreme court however, found .....
Tag this Judgment!