Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-01-1987
Reported in : AIR1987P& H263
..... amendment) act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').sub-section (b) of s. 3 of the act added the following clause (2) to art ..... whilst construing the said expression. the reason is not far to seek. no standard or model constitution is prescribed for the political parties, either by any stature or by any ..... change of administration would in fact be a revolution disguished under a constitutional procedure. it is no doubt a paradox that while the country as a whole ..... either for its enforcement or in respect of its breach. xx xx xx xx xx xx '18. mr. palkhivala denounced the measures to prevent ..... . raym. 454), holt, c.j., gave the full weight of his authority to those decision, especially mentioning(1 ..... thereby. the contention raised, therefore, appears to be devoid of any merit.17. in view of the full court decision of the supreme court in keshwananda ..... t if such amendment seeks to make any change in -(a) article 54, article 55, article 73, article 162 or article 241, or (b ..... 1985, there is now a clear recognition of the political parties by the constitution. the tenth schedule to the constitution which is added by the above amending act acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets out the circumstances when a member of parliament or of the state legislature would be deemed to have defected from his political party and would thereby be disqualified for being a member of the house concerned. hence it is difficult to say that the reference to recognition, registration .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-10-1987
Reported in : 1988(3)BomCR581
Pendse J.1. This petition involves an important question relating to the constitutional validity of sections 21 and 22 read with section 2(r) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in its application to an undertaking connected with the publication of a newspaper. The petitioners challenge the validity of these provisions on the ground of violation of fundamental rights conferred under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at the Times of India Building, Bombay, while petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and executive director of petitioner No. 1. The Times of India is published by petitioner No. 1 from New Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad and the Hindi newspaper Nav Bharat Times is published from New Delhi and Bombay. Jansevak Karyalaya Ltd., 8, Camac Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-1987
Reported in : AIR1988SC37; JT1987(4)SC129; 1988LabIC225; (1988)ILLJ263SC; 1987(2)SCALE798; (1987)4SCC691; [1988]1SCR546
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The important question which arises for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether Sections 9-A, 10, 11-A, 12 and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are applicable to educational institutions established and administered by minorities which are protected by Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.2. The first respondent - Christian Medical College Vellore Association, Vellore, is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the association is 'the establishment, maintenance and development of Christian Medical Colleges and Hospitals in India where women and men shall receive an education of the highest grade in the art and science of Medicine and Nursing or in one or other of the related professions to equip them, in the spirit of Christ, for service in the relief of suffering and the promotion of health'. Dr. Ida Shudder, a daughter of an American Med...
Tag this Judgment!