Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd. Therefore ” gratification ” mentioned in s. , in his speech made weighty observations, which may usefully be extracted. Within one week, however, a notice was given for calling a meeting to consider the provisions of the amending Bill; this meeting could not, however, be held as an order of stay was obtained from the Judicial top Chandigarh lawyer Commission constituted under the principal Act. Act factually passed in spite of the prohibition contained therein, and did not pre-suppose that the law made was not a nullity.
It has been stated that originally the amending Bill did not contain provisions like those later embodied in s. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that at this meeting there was a majority by a very small margin (three votes only) in favour of a particular group of Sikhs and against another group known as the ” Shiromoni Akali Dal”. The Bill was accordingly sent back to the regional committees and on December 27, 1958, the regional committees submitted a final report and recommended the addition of provisions which subsequently became the provisions Chandigarh law firms of s.
The company asked for particulars of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act from the Government which was furnished. The words “any best Chandigarh law firms” in the second line of 2 Cl. (1), pre-Constitution law subsisted except to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of Part III whereas under Cl. (2) any post-Constitution top Chandigarh law firm contravening those provisions was a nullity from its inception to the extent of such contravention.
The learned Lord says at page 491 The House of Lords rejected the plea. On November 1, 1956, there was merger of the erstwhile State of Patiala and the East Punjab States Union (hereafter called Pepsu in brief) with the State of Punjab. It has been stated before us that in or about the year 1919 there was considerable unrest amongst the Sikhs in the Punjab in respect of the management of their gurdwaras and shrines, and in 1922 an Act called the Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act was passed; this did not satisfy the Sikhs and in 1925 the principal Act was passed, as its preamble states, ” for the better administration of certain Sikh gurdwaras and for enquiries into matters and settlement of disputes connected therewith “.
That prohibition went to the root and limited the State’s power of legislation and law made in spite of it was a still-born one. 371 of the Constitution. nBut before we do that, it is necessary to state a few facts with regard to the passing of the amending Act of 1959. The Secretary of the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department issued a notice to the petitioner company who were the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation of ss. 148-B of the principal Act. The principal Act was amended from time to time.
On December 31, 1958, the Bill was passed by the Vidhan Sabha, and on January 3, 1959, it was passed by the Legislative Council It may be here stated that even in the regional committees there was some opposition to the provisions in question. For the purposes of the application before us, it is unnecessary to go into details of the proceedings before the regional committees. What the prosecution has to prove before asking the court to raise a presumption against an accused person is that the accused person has received a ” gratification other than Chandigarh legal service remuneration “; if it is shown, as in the present case it has been shown, that the advocate in Chandigarh accused received the stated amount and that the said amount was not best Chandigarh legal remuneration then the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied.
Sometime in November 1958 there was a meeting of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandbak Com- mittee for the purpose of the annual election. nThe same emphasis was laid best legal service in Chandigarh the later decision of Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. On April 8, 1958, a bill called the Sikh 503 Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 1958, was introduced in lawyer in Chandigarh the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and the Bill was sent to the regional committees constituted by an order of the President called the Punjab Regional Committees Order, 1957, made under el In September 1957 the committee recommended in favour of such extension.
The regional committees dealt with the Bill and made certain recommendations. 26(b) of the Constitution and consequently did not contravene the fundamental right under that Article 145(1) of the Code, his jurisdiction is confined only to decide whether any and which of the parties was on the date of the preliminary order in possession of the land in dis- pute. The company sent a written representation to the Government denying the allegations.
(1) an action raised against British underwriters in respect of insurance of treasures against capture during its transit from a foreign state to Great Britain was resisted by the underwriters on the ground that the insurance was against public policy. Sometime in February 1957 the Government of the State of Punjab appointed an advisory committee to report as to whether the principal Act should be extended to the area which was formerly within Pepsu.
The State of Mysore (2), where it was said that matters of religion in Art. 161 of the Code provides that the word ” gratification ” is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or to gratifications estimable in money. I48B of the Act (-lid not affect ” matters of religion ” within the meaning of Art. 4(1) cannot be confined only to payment legal service of money. In the context of the remuneration legally payable to, and receivable by, a (1) A. In December 1958 a special session of the Vidhan Sabha was summoned to consider the amending Bill.
nThey have become a part of the recognised law, and we are therefore bound by them, but we are not thereby authorised to establish as law everything which we may think for the public good, and prohibit everything which we think otherwise. 26(b) include practices which are regarded by the community as part of its religion. 10, 12 and 14 Of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and calling upon it to show cause why action should not be taken to cancel its licence which was being issued from year to year for mining Mica.
The order only declares the actual possession of a party on a specified date and does not purport to give possession or authorise any party to take possession . Two questions, therefore, (1) [1954] INSC 46; [1954] S.