SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(All) 181

AMITAV BANERJI, SATISHCHANDRA
M. M. Sales and Exports (India) (Pvt. )Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of UP – Respondent


Advocates:
T.P. Asthana, for Petitioners; Standing Counsel, for Opposite Parties.

Judgement

SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- The principal question, raised by this writ petition was whether the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, No. 38 of 1944 was in force on 27th July, 1973 when the District Judge, Kanpur passed an ex parte order attaching the petitionersandapos; Bank account under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance. A Bench of this Court while admitting the writ petition directed that since the involved question was of general importance it may be heard and decided by a Division Bench. That is how this writ petition has been listed for hearing before this Bench.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 ceased to have force or effect after 15th August 1947 because of the operation of the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947 as well as the India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947. In order to appreciate these submissions we have to notice certain provisions.

3. Part II of the Government of India Act, 1935 envisaged the establishment of the Federation of India. Section 317 of the Government of India Act, 1935 continued the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1915 with certain amendments ment




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top