WebChintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759 and State of Madras v. V. G. Rao, [1952] S.C.R. 597, referred to. JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE … WebNov 8, 2010 · Cited By: 172. Coram: 5. ...Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118 this Court observed as follows: “The phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes that the...case of State of Bombay v. F.N Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 this Court observed as follows: “In judging the reasonableness...SCC 19. 43.
Shankar Balaji Waje vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 October, 1961
WebChintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1958] S.C. R. 1340, applied. Whether the appellant contravened the provisions of sub-.(1) of s. 79 depended on the proper construction of ss. 79 and 80 of the Act. With the terms of the work as they were in the present case there could be no basis for calculating the daily average of the worker's ... WebChintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1950] INSC 29 (8 November 1950) ... Visweshwar Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] INSC 38 (27 May 1952) Judgement Date : ... 2 Lew. 227, and Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) S.C.R. 1091 referred to, 95 To establish a charge under s. 20... Read full Judgement . … to rent west dumbartonshire
Chintaman Rao Ram Krishna v/s State of Madhya Pradesh
WebDec 26, 2024 · And in Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the supreme court opined that a restriction to be reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be beyond what is required in the interest of the public. Some of the principles which the supreme court has affirmed in ascertaining the reasonableness of restrictions are as follows: Web13. This Court, in Shri Chintaman Rao & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1958 SCR 1340...Court, in Shri Chintaman Rao case, examined the various provisions of the Act at pp. 1350-51 and then said at p. 1351: “The scheme of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the...manufacturing process is a worker. The question raised in this case turns upon … WebMay 11, 2024 · The SCI has applied this doctrine in many cases (particularly in balancing the rights in Article 19 (1) and restrictions contained in Article 19(6) of the Constitution)- Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh 6 State of Madras v. V.G. Row 7; Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh 8; Om Kumar v. pin edge to taskbar gpo