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: 1986 Page 1 of about 301 results (0.875 seconds)Manohar S. Prabhu and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-03-1986
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR130
..... parliament and therefore from the wide language in which the article is couched it would appear that subject only to compliance with the procedure laid down in article 368 itself the powers of parliament to amend constitution ..... for it is stated therein that we the people of india having solemnly resolved to constitute india into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic do hereby adopt .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTD. Jayaraman Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-21-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Mad215
..... 368 is that if parliament proposes to amend any provision of the constitution not enshrined in the proviso the procedure prescribed by the main part of the article ..... of the resolution and therefore the resolution is unsustainable as it suffers from arbitrary exercise of power and is in violation ..... with the requirement of art 169 1 of the constitution of india i am also unable to accept the construction .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTJayarama Vs. Ajjanna
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3583
40 of 1981 was a nullity and was one without jurisdiction 10 as already stated above the order of eviction maintained no contravention of section 148a of the code of civil procedure in this case 18 therefore in the result the order of the code of civil procedure or other similar provisions therefore the court below in my opinion slipped info a serious
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNarayan Biswal Vs. Ananta Mallik
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-12-1986
Reported in : 1986(II)OLR584
section 3 of the act would amount to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity accordingly the impugned order is set aside it is not legal statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can scale tarun chatterjee r m lodha jj fixation orissa service code 1939 rule 74 b promotion government servant by virtue of a benevolent legislation to give relief to the scheduled debtors therefore a scheduled debtor is required to satisfy the pre conditions
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAssociated Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-09-1986
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR112; 1989(20)LC33(Bombay); 1986MhLJ272
of three months for recovery of duty erroneously refunded effect constitution of india article 14 when a manufacturer exporter opted to to central excise and salt act may be exported outside india without payment of duty from a ware house or a be entitled to rebate of excise duty on the exported article only to such extent as the central government might by of the code any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the police officer of l t 201 allahabad the learned judges noted that the amending act which brought section 11a on the statute book did that there is invidious discrimination between manufacturer exporters following the procedure laid down under rule 12 of the central excise rules rates prescribed in a notification dated may 17 1969 he therefore ordered the petitioners to refund the sum of rs 1
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSarojamma Vs. Iliyas Ahmed
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-04-1986
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1173
by the executing court itself in exercise of its inherent power under section 151 of the code of civil procedure on its jurisdiction under section 115 of the code of civil procedure if the proceeding is amenable to section 115 of the that the cheque was given to him by the accused therefore since the very fact that the complainant lent to the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSubodh Kumar and ors. Vs. Satya Swarup Singh Bhatti and anr.
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-1986
Reported in : 32(1987)DLT212
1980 it appears that permission was grained by the competent authority for sale of the property in question to respondent no filed objections under order 21 rule 97 code of civil procedure in our view the provisions of order 21 rule 97
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPundalik S/O Mahadeo Ingole and ors. Vs. Sidheshwar Tukaram Uparkar an ...
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-17-1986
Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR684; 1987MhLJ470
of three years and publish the same on its notice board on or before 14th july each year it also provides who had therefore become functus officio and there was no power to him to direct the petitioners 1 to 9 now managing committee of any society in its general meeting the procedure laid down in rule 60 would be applicable to such the annual general meeting of the society it is not therefore of any assistance to the contesting respondents to support their
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBakhtawar Khan Vs. Noor Mohamad
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-28-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Raj167; 1986(1)WLN138
a witness order xxvi rule 1 c p c gives power to the court to issue a commission for the examination and thereafter it will proceed in accordance with law civil procedure code order 16 rule 1 amp order 26 rule 1 it because ajeet johar was not present in court and therefore the court was not bound to either adjourn the case
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAmba Bhavani and ors. Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-29-1986
Reported in : [1986]63STC40(AP)
of sale 23 on consideration of the provisions of the constitution amendment act 1982 in the light of the judgments of principle it was reiterated in the subsequent decision in northern india caterers v lt governor of delhi 1979 1scr557 if that whether retrospective imposition of tax violates the fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19 1 g the supreme court observed in that sections 4 and 6 were not ultra vires article 368 and were not violative of articles 14 19 1 g constitution forty sixth amendment act 1982 was within the amending power of the parliament under article 368 of the constitution and came to the conclusion that by enacting section 6 the parliament removed the defect pointed out by the court in the was ultimately replaced by the andhra pradesh general sales tax amendment act 18 of 1985 which was published in the gazette by the supreme court to withdraw the writ petitions and civil appeals filed by them in order to enable them to hold that because the retrospective operation covers a long period therefore the restriction imposed by it is unreasonable union of india
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT