The Court referred to the Khosla Committee that had addressed and examined history of development of film censorship in India. 42 of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the provision is only directory. 426(2A) and (2B) now deal with the subject of bail even though the main section is a part of Chapter XXXI which deals with appeals, references and revisions. The Court held that, notwithstanding the use of the word “shall ” in s. 4(b) lose their sting and the way is free and open for us to do that justice for which the Courts exist.
lawyers in Supreme Court construing the provisions in such a manner, Lush, J. Again, acquisition of land for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. advocates in Supreme Cour of Indiat other words, their Lordships examined the provisions of s. 426 is, and was intend to contain, a complete and exhaustive statement of the powers of a High Court in India to grant bail, and excludes the existence of any additional inherent power lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat a High Court relating to the subject of bail “.
Will it not cause injustice here? The Court adverted to various provisions of the Act and in that context observed that it has been almost universally recognised that treatment of motion pictures must be different from that of other forms of art and expression. It would be clear from the judgment that their Lordships were not called upon to consider the question about the inherent power of the High Courts to cancel bail under s. Why should we give greater sanctity and more binding force to rules and regulations than to our own Constitution ?
561A of the Code and they pointed out that such a power ,,cannot be properly Attributed to the High Courts because it would, if exercised, interrupt the serving of the sentence; and, besides it would, Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat (Going In this article) the event of the appeal being unsuccessful, result in defeating the ends of justice. The judgment further shows their Lordships’ opinion, like the High Court of Justice in England, High Courts in India would not have inherent power to grant bail to a convicted person.
Why should we take a narrower view of a mere set of rules than this Court and the Federal Court and the Privy Council have taken of the Constitution and the Act of a Legislature and even of a Supreme Court advocates Parliament? In our opinion, neither this decision nor even the observations on which Shri Purushottam relied can afford any assistance in deciding the point which this appeal has raised before us. While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced with the rights of the individual whose land is acquired, thereby often depriving him of his means of livelihood.
XXXIX of the Code together with s. 199, 207 456 list comes into force on the 6th April. , has become far more numerous than ever before. 10 1984 – 3,5,6,9] Prefatory Note ” Statement of Objects and Reasons ” With the enormous expansion of the States role in promoting public welfare and economic development since independence, acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialisation, building of institutions, etc.
1330 Street Railway Company v. Their Lordships said at page, 175 that when a statute prescribes a formality for the performance of a public duty, the formality is to be regarded as directory only if to hold it as mandatory would cause serious general inconvenience or injustice. The observance of times is not enforced by penalties. Even so, in dealing with the question as to whether inherent power could be exercised for granting bail to a convicted person, their Lordships did refer to S.
[Current Central Legislation Vol. Why should we hesitate to do justice with firmness and vigour? It may, therefore, be held that the accounts, which could have thrown some light on the sources from which Rs. 561A and came to the (1) (1945) L. 15,000, was drawn by Govindprasad and the further amounts for building the house were supplied, were not filed. If we apply the same principles here, then the words required to be made ” in r. That point did not obviously arise Law firms in Supreme Court the case before them.
But there are other sections whereunder provision is made for preparing the valuation lists where there has been omission to make them according to the requirements of the Act. Incidentally we may add that it was as a result of the observations made by the Privy Council advocates in Supreme Cour of Indiat that case that s. The Court referred to the decision in Roth (supra), wherein three tests have been laid down as under: The two fundamental contentions that were raised before this Court were firstly, the pre-censorship itself cannot be tolerated under the freedom of speech and expression and secondly, even if it were a legitimate restraint on the freedom, it must be exercised on very definite principles which leave no room for arbitrary action.
426 of the Code was amended in 1945 and power has been conferred on appropriate courts either to suspend the sentence or to grant bail as mentioned in the several subsections of s. It was also pointed out that if the bail was allowed in such a case, the exercise of the inherent power would result in -an alteration by the High Court of its judgment which is prohibited by s. 120, 132, 1239 conclusion that the power to grant bail to a convicted person would not fit in :with the scheme of Chapter XXXIX of the Code read with s.