Chirajeet lals case

The SC ruled that a law may be constitutional even if it applies to a single individual on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, that individual may be treated as a class itself.

In my opinion therefore this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. This follows logically from the rule of law that a corporation has a distinct legal personality of its own with rights and capacities, duties and Chirajeet lals case separate from those of its individual members.

Nor does it make any difference that other persons who may be injured are person of the same race or occupation. Before I address myself to the merits of this applica- tion it will be necessary to clear up two preliminary matters in Chirajeet lals case to which arguments were advanced at some length from the Bar.

The second is whether in fact the petitioner has shown that the Act runs contrary to article 14 of the Constitution. The main ground put forward by the petitioner is that the pith and substance of the enactments is to take posses- sion of and control over the mills of the company which are its valuable assets and such taking of possession of proper- ty is entirely beyond the powers of the Legislature.

These is really not much substance in this argument, for according to the petitioner the impugned Act is not valid at all and consequently the respondents cannot take their stand on this very Act to defeat the application for a writ in the nature of a mandamus.

As the Ordinance is no longer in force and all its provisions have been incorporated in the Act, it will not be necessary to deal with or refer to the enactments separately.

Pattabhi Raman, for the petitioner. This principle has been very clearly stated by Hughes J. The closure of the mill meant a loss of 25 lakhs yards of cloth and one and a half lakhs pounds of yarn per month. In accordance with the provisions of section 15 men- tioned above, the Central Government, by notification issued on the same day that the Ordinance was promulgated, delegat- ed all its powers exercisable under the Ordinance to the Government of Bombay, On the next day, the Government of Bombay appointed respond- ents 3 to 7 as directors of the company in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance.

It forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. But it does not forbid reasonable classification.

In this view, the only question which has to be answered is whether the petition has succeeded in showing that there has been an infringement of his rights as a shareholder under articles 31 and 19 1 f of the Constitution. It does not prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.

Not each and every undertaking which may have to close down can be taken charge of tempo- rarily by Government. In taking possession on the other hand, the title to the property admittedly remains in the original holder, though he is excluded from possession or enjoyment of the property.

It forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. This question has been so elaborately dealt with by Mukherjea J. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus.

State of Bihar l In the present case, Parliament, it was said, came to the conclusion, on the materials placed before them, that the affairs of the company were being grossly mismanaged so as to result in the cessation of production of an essential commodity and serious unemploy- ment amongst a section of the community.

2,106 results

In this case heaving regard to my conclusion on the second point, I do not think it is necessary to pronounce a definite opinion on the first point.

I agree with the line of reasoning and the conclusion of Mr. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India G. In state of UP v. Leghari and Lahore have shown the way. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required.

A reference to the Parliamentary proceedings shows that some time ago, a representation was made on behalf of a section of the shareholders of the Sholapur company to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in Bombay, against the conduct of the managing agents, and the Government of Bombay was moved to order a special inquiry into the affairs of the company.

A clear enunciation of this latter doctrine is to be found in Middleton v. The second is whether in fact the petitioner has shown that the Act runs contrary to article 14 of the Con- stitution.

It is argued, however, that article 14 does not make it incumbent on the Legislature always to make laws applicable to all persons generally, and that it is open to the Legis- lature 'to classify persons and things and subject them to the operation of a particular law according to the aims and objects which that law is designed to secure.

XXVIII ofwhich will hereinafter be referred to as "the Act", has been assailed, is that it infringes three fundamental rights, these being: Merely showing that the Council of Ministers had applied their minds in order to arrive at the decision is not tenable and such decision is arbitrary and unreasonable and is subject to judicial review.

Chaffin Luhana

Section 12 provides for the restoration of the management to directors nominated by the shareholders when the purpose of the Government's interven- tion has been fulfilled.

It was stated in the preamble to the Ordinance that "on account of mis- management and neglect, a situation has arisen in the af- fairs of the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company Limited which has prejudicially affected the production of an essen- tial commodity and has caused serious unemployment amongst a certain section of the community ", and it was on account of the emergency arising from this situation that the promulga- tion of the Ordinance Chirajeet lals case necessary.

This article corresponds to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which declares that "no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Joshi, for opposite party Nos. It is argued by the learned Attorney-General that the taking of possession as contemplated by article 31 2 means the taking of possession of the entire bundle of rights which the previous holder had, by excluding him from every part or item thereof.

The first prayer made in the petition, n seeks relief in the shape of a declaration that the Act is invalid and is apparently inappropriate to an application under article 32; while the second purports to be framed for a relief by way of injunc- tion consequent upon the first.

The petitioner is thereled to seek relief under article 32 of the Constitu- tion. The right to vote, to elect directors, to pass resolu- tions and to present an application for winding up, are privileges incidental to the ownership of a share, but they are not by themselves apart from the share, "property" within the meaning of Art.

It is the fact, clearly established, of injuiry to the complainant - not to others - which justifies judicial interference.Everest Group's industry expertise provides a comprehensive view across sourcing models and locations for leading industries that use global services.

Chiranjit lal case - Download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online.

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Search Search. please note: the decisions published on this web site are not an all-inclusive listing of all cases involving emord and associates as bigskyquartet.coms depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case.

the results published here do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the firm. Sep 21,  · In a case of chiranjeet lal bigskyquartet.com of IndiaIt was held that single individual may be considered as a class in special circumstances.

Pakistan ordered to enforce climate law by Lahore court

The SC ruled that a law may be constitutional even if it applies to a single individual on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him, that individual may be treated as a class itself. Why are girls, after knowing the truth about the Jasleen Kaur case, not answering questions on Quora?

Did any news channel apologise to Sarvjeet after the Jasleen Kaur fiasco and the public shaming of the guy? With the recent case of Jasleen Kaur and Sarabjeet Singh, are girls misusing their rights?

Everest Group’s Market Insights™ reveal actionable intelligence from across the full spectrum of our research in concise, easily accessible infographics PEAK Matrix™ Everest Group's PEAK Matrix™ is the most trusted source for comparative assessments of providers, locations, and products & solutions.

Download
Chirajeet lals case
Rated 4/5 based on 49 review