Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: sashastra seema bal act 2007 section 6 enrolment Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1971 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.103 seconds)

Apr 23 1971 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-23-1971

Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502

..... ground that the order was not in conformity with the limitations which are expressed and also implicit in section 3 of the essential commodities act--the parent act--on the basis of which the central government issued the order in question. in other words, the bench held that when the government ..... while interpreting the particular language employed in the enactment, delegating the powers to the government. for instance, under section 3 of the essential commodities act, the central government can issue necessary directions and orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and also for maintaining or ..... the business activities of industries specified in the first schedule, where the government thinks it is expedient in the public interest to do so. the act contains provisions for registration of existing undertakings, provisions for licensing the establishment and construction of development councils for advising the government, power of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 01 1971 (HC)

Mariam Bai Vs. Mohamed Jaffar Abdul Rahiman Sait and ors

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-01-1971

Reported in : AIR1973Mad191

..... the appellant relied on the decision in govindram v. madangopal, air 1945 pc 74, where it was held that though section 17(2)(i) of the registration act exempts a composition deed, it did not mean that if the document required registration under any other enactment it was valid without registration. the privy council held that ..... ) of section 17(2) of the registration act is to limit its operation to any decree or order of a court except a decree or order which is the result of a compromise and which comprises immovable property ..... compromise decree in a prior suit in which immovable property was also the subject-matter did not require registration by reason of section 17(2)(vi) of the registration act and that it was admissible in the subsequent suit between the same parties. in muthukrishna chetti v. meenakshiammal , jagadisan, j. has held that theeffect of clause (vi .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //