Court : Supreme Court of India
..... of deprivation. the niti aayog report considered as poor, an individual spending less than 47 a day in cities as against one spending less than 32 a day in villages. the national multidimensional poverty index ( nmpi ) 66 based itself on three facets education, health, and standard of living each having a weightage of one-third, in ..... articles 15(6) and 16(6). if there is any doubt yet, the official hindi translation of the 51 law, liberty and social justice , asia publishing house, bombay (1965), p.120. 135 amendment in question, as published in the gazette of india, extraordinary, part ii, section 1a dated 17.07.2019 would remove any misconception ..... to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of article 14 (emphasis supplied) 45.1. in maganlal chhaganlal (p) ltd. v. municipal corporation of greater bombay and ors.: (1974) 2 scc402 it was observed: - 33. ..article 14 enunciates a vital principle which lies at the core of our republicanism and shines like a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... list of backward communities. the commission observed:"in maharashtra, besides the brahman it is the maratha who claimed to be the ruling community in the villages and the prabhu that dominated all other communities.308. the second national backward classes commission, i.e., mandal commission in its report included maratha community ..... to interpret a constitutional provision.350. shri gopal sankaranarayanan, relying on the judgment of this court in state of travancore, cochin and others vs. bombay company ltd., air1952sc366 submits that this court observed that the speeches made by the members of the constituent assembly as external aid to the constitutional interpretation ..... of 2018 is constitutionally invalid on account of lack of legislative competence on the following sub-heads:- (a) the subsisting interim order passed by the bombay high court in sanjeet shukla vs. state of maharashtra (wp31512014) thereby granting stay to a similar enactment and ordinance of the state, which is pending .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... or when it is taken out of the notified market area. thus, the bylaws introduced additional circumstances to the legal fiction contemplated under section 12. 70 indian express newspapers (bombay) (p) ltd v. union of india, (1985) 1 scc641[75].; general officer commanding-in-chief v. subhash chandra yadav, (1988) 2 scc352[14].. 71 rajnarain ..... mp, (1954) 1 scc978[12]. 38 municipal corporation of delhi v. birla cotton, spinning and weaving mills, delhi, 1968 scc online sc13[13]., [71]. 39 indian express newspapers (bombay) (p) ltd v. union of india, (1985) 1 scc641[77].; state of tamil nadu v. p krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 scc517[15]. 21 part d (vi) manifest ..... pre-requisite for enrolment. d. legal background i. all india bar committee 14. the establishment of the high courts by letters patent in the presidencies of calcutta, bombay, and madras brought all courts in the territories of british india under a unified system. the letters patent also allowed the high courts to enroll advocates, vakils, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... and | | | | | | |natural | | | | | | |guardian | | | | | | |tmt. j.| | | | | | |elavarasi | | | | | | |no.7 east | | | | | | |beach road ,| | | | | | |neelankarai,| | | | | | |chennai 41 | | | | |4 acres 15 cents in |15-09-201|j, vivek |1,86,226 |ii |90 | |karunkuzhipallam village|4 |(minor) | | | | | |sale deed|represented | | | | | | |by his | | | | | | |mother and | | | | | | |natural | | | | | | |guardian | | | | | | |tmt.-. j.| | | | | | |elavarasi | | | | | | |no.7 east | | | | | | |beach road, | | | | | | |neelankarai,| | | | | | |chennai 41 | | | | |cash balance as on |30-04- ..... agarwal |14,000.00 |p-1382 | | | |from ca2018canara bank | | | | | |mylapore of selvi j.| | | | | |jayalalitha on 26.5.92 | | | | |112 |amount paid to |15,150.00 |p-1382 | | | |new | |p-1479 | | | |bombay sweets from ca | | | | | |2018 of canara bank mylapore | | | | | |of selvi j.jayalalitha on | | | | | |21.5.92 | | | | |113 |amount paid to |16,637.40 |p-1382 | | | |ramalakshmi sweets from ca | | | | | .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
..... regulate what is to follow, not the past .these principles have been laid down and reiterated in a string of decisions including in (i) keshavan madhava menot versus state of bombay, air 195.sc 128.(ii) arjan singh versus state of punjab, air 197.sc 703.(iii) ex.capt.kc arora & anr. versus state of haryana & ors.(1984) 3 scc 281 ..... taken by this court in smt. ram kaur s case; the patna high court in guru prasad yadav versus state of bihar, crl. app no.582 of 2011; and the bombay high court in balasaheb rangnath khade s case, and held that:- if the victim also happens to be complainant and the appeal is against acquittal, he is required to take ..... section 482 crpc no.5934 of 2012. contrary to it, (i) madhya pradesh high court in dharamveer singh tomar versus ram raj singh tomar, 2011(3) rcr (crl.) 607; (ii) bombay high court in shanta ram versus deepak, 2012(2) mhlj 39 as well as in (iii) balasaheb rangnath khade versus state of maharashtra & ors., (2012) bom cr(crl.) 632 have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... sir, sub:electricity tax - tamil nadu tax on consumption or sale of electricity act 2003 - thiru.empee distilleries ltd. (power division) no.261/3, koothadivayal village, aranthangi t.k., pudukkottai district - details of units of electricity generated through the power generating plant and the details of units sold - called for - regarding. ..... or by necessary implication.".7. again in mangulal chunilal v. manilal maganlal [air1968sc822, while considering the scope of section 481(1)(a) of the bombay provincial municipal corporation act (59 of 1949) this court said that commissioner of the ahmedabad municipal corporation had delegated his power and function under the aforesaid ..... mandatory or otherwise.120. reference can be made to the following paragraphs of may george (supra) : ".16. in dattatraya moreshwar v. the state of bombay and ors. [air1952sc181, this court observed that law which creates public duties is directory but if it confers private rights it is mandatory. relevant passage .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... petitioner, 3. mr. m. syed, major, s/o not known to the petitioner,.4. mr. mohd. ismail, major, s/o not known to the petitioner, all are r/at attarana village, mangaluru hobli, mangaluru district. respondents (by sri. b v acharya., and sri. b l acharya., senior counsels & special - 8 - wp no.11158/2013 c/w w.p.nos.43928/ ..... was divided into two - 15 - wp no.11158/2013 c/w w.p.nos.43928/2012, 11966/2013 23287/2013, 62434/2016 districts: the northern part was brought under the bombay presidency and the south canara continued under the madras presidency. the history of mulageni lands in south canara dates back to vijayanagara dynasty (1336) of the fame of a forgotten ..... 43928/2012, 11966/2013 23287/2013, 62434/2016 raghoba64. it observed at the latter half of paragraph 61: the point to be noted is that in the decision of the bombay high court, referred to above, a mulawargadar has always been understood in south canara to be an owner or original proprietor . at the same time, it referred to a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... petitioner, 3. mr. m. syed, major, s/o not known to the petitioner,.4. mr. mohd. ismail, major, s/o not known to the petitioner, all are r/at attarana village, mangaluru hobli, mangaluru district. respondents (by sri. b v acharya., and sri. b l acharya., senior counsels & special - 8 - wp no.11158/2013 c/w w.p.nos.43928/ ..... was divided into two - 15 - wp no.11158/2013 c/w w.p.nos.43928/2012, 11966/2013 23287/2013, 62434/2016 districts: the northern part was brought under the bombay presidency and the south canara continued under the madras presidency. the history of mulageni lands in south canara dates back to vijayanagara dynasty (1336) of the fame of a forgotten ..... 43928/2012, 11966/2013 23287/2013, 62434/2016 raghoba64. it observed at the latter half of paragraph 61: the point to be noted is that in the decision of the bombay high court, referred to above, a mulawargadar has always been understood in south canara to be an owner or original proprietor . at the same time, it referred to a .....
Tag this Judgment!