Constitution Of India Article 368 Power Of Parliament To Amend The Constitution And Procedure Therefor - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: constitution of india article 368 power of parliament to amend the constitution and procedure therefor Year: 1975 Page 1 of about 301 results (0.935 seconds)Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Shri Raj NaraIn and anr.
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-07-1975
Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347
..... seventeenth amendment was ultra vires the parliament s power to amend the constitution five out of the six learned judges held that article 368 did not confer any power to amend but merely prescribed the procedure for amendment the sixth learned judge held that article 368 did contain the power of amendment but that the parliament must amend article 368 to .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTP. Venkateseshamma Vs. the State Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-22-1975
Reported in : AIR1976AP1
..... of the constitution do not constitute essential features or basic structure of the constitution khanna j held the power of amendment under article 368 does not include the power to abrogate the constitution nor ..... because they seek to amend the constitution but because they violate some provisions of the constitution or are beyond the competence of the parliament and therefore of the president the .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTK. Keshavamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-12-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ761
case of an offence punishable under section 406 of the indian penal code against the petitioner 2 the facts giving rise of the code of criminal procedure 1973 code of civil procedure 1908 section 148 a s pachhapuri j enlargement of time period is prescribed or allowed by the civil procedure code therefore the provisions of section 148 cpc do not apply to
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Managing Committee of the Digambar College, Dibai Vs. the Vice-cha ...
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Apr-21-1975
Reported in : AIR1975All445
consideration the vice chancellor is then required to exercise his power in the background of these statutory provisions it appears to can be terminated by the management without compliance with the procedure of providing an opportunity to him it is therefore clear without the prior approval of the vice chancellor it is therefore clear that an action terminating his service cannot be held
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShanti Devi Vs. Rattan Lal
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-01-1975
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi573; 1977RLR531
position of a statutory tenant under english law and in india it consequently held that if after having filed an appeal person it is well settled that to decide the true scope of interpretation of enactment the court must have regard to the tenant the legislature obviously reasoned that as by the amendment of definition of the tenant it would be inequitable and competent to have the proceedings reopened the lower appellate court thereforee rightly dismissed her application ii interpretation of statutes mode of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPartap Singh Bhatia Vs. Kartar Singh and ors.
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-25-1975
Reported in : AIR1976Delhi202
but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of any accidental slip or omission mr vohra contends that the power of review is not inherent in any authority and must appeal dismissed property jurisdiction section 100 of code of civil procedure 1908 and sections 24 1 24 2 24 4 and settlement commissioner ordering transfer of the proper1y to the respondent thereforee comes into operation with its full vigour and it is
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Ramkrishna Kulvantrai
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1975
Reported in : [1976]37STC564(Bom)
did not come into operation sales tax officer had no power to forfeit any amount collected by way of sales tax tax act 1956 as amended by the central sales tax amendment act 1969 the tribunal is correct in law in coming 1956 and the tribunal s finding on this point was therefore unnecessary and academic it was further submitted on behalf of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBahadur Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-18-1975
Reported in : ILR1976Delhi375
was repelled holding that before the passing of the seventh constitution amendment act 1956 delhi was a part c state which 333 d of 1961 krishan kumar chopra v union of india and others decided on 9th may 1969 8 and civil 1956 delhi was designated as a union territory which under article 239 1 shall be administered by the president through an be restored to under the provisions of the act the powers and functions of the board under sections 110 and 117 not to be implied 59 in the instant case the parliament passed the development act with complete knowledge of the act to be treated repealed impliedly 46 while introducing the development amendment bill dr sushila nayyar minister of health stated that there to 20 of the original development act feeling that the procedure incorporated there under operated to the disadvantages of the public the act within the union territory of delhi could it thereforee be said that by virtue of the amendment made in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTHigh Court Vs. Sant Ram
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-08-1975
Reported in : 1975RLR349
proceedings there can be no doubt thereforee as to their constituting criminal contempt within the meaning of clause c of section officer for his criminal misconduct and offences u s 219 indian penal code on 3 8 74 the above named sri c of section 2 of the act 1969 that the articles published in crusader left an impression that all was not shri b b gupta by passing a decree for rs 368 00 to the advantage of ram narain and more than that everyhigh court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and authority in accordance with the same procedure and practice facts calling for enquiry and action that the revocation or amendment of the earlier notice amounted to his discharge and the and other was barred by section 10 of the civil procedure code and lower court should have given a finding on there is no reference from shri b b gupta and thereforee no action for the allegations made against the last mentioned
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSha Kanji Devji and ors. Vs. the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Ii ...
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-21-1975
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Kar)10; 1976(1)KarLJ56
vs state of bihar 1955 2scr603 the parliament amended the constitution by the constitution sixth amendment act 1956 in certain respects by the supreme court in jain brothers vs union of india 1970 77itr107 sc hence there is no substance in this of the state act with retrospective effect clause 3 of article 286 requires the parliament to impose the restrictions and conditions parliament under section 15 of the central act on the power of the state legislature to levy tax on sale or them 11 that appears to be true intention of the parliament and the state legislature as can be seen from the act 61 of 1973 came into force the state legislature amended the proviso to section 5 4 of the state act barred by limitation k ramanna j a code of civil procedure 1908 section 100 regular second appeal suit for partition and refund made under the state act was untenable it cannot therefore be argued that the action taken by the assessing authorities
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT