Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary VS State of Tamil Nadu by its Chief Secretary...
State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary VS State of Tamil Nadu by its Chief Secretary - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 146 : The effect of an undertaking given by the erstwhile state on the successor state is that the successor state is bound by the obligations and agreements of the erstwhile state unless they are explicitly modified, changed, or repudiated. This principle applies particularly to agreements of public interest, such as those concerning water resources, which do not become inoperative or extinct upon reorganization of states. The continuity of such agreements is maintained under the doctrine of equitable succession, where the rights, liabilities, and obligations of the erstwhile state continue to bind the successor state. This is supported by the interpretation of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and Section 84 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, which confirm that laws and agreements in force before reorganization remain effective until altered by the competent legislature of the successor state. The court emphasized that mere territorial reorganization does not automatically extinguish obligations, and the successor state is not absolved of responsibilities unless there is a clear repudiation or modification.Checking relevance for State Of Gujarat VS Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala: Vora Hakimuddin Tayabali Amthaniwala: Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala: Mehta Kantilal Chandulal: Pathan Abbaskhan Ahmedkhan...
State Of Gujarat VS Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala: Vora Hakimuddin Tayabali Amthaniwala: Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala: Mehta Kantilal Chandulal: Pathan Abbaskhan Ahmedkhan - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 24 : The effect of an undertaking given by the erstwhile state on the successor state is that such undertakings, particularly those involving rights enforceable against the previous sovereign, do not automatically survive a change in sovereignty. According to the principle established by the Privy Council decisions cited in the document, the rights of private individuals under grants from former rulers are extinguished upon the change of sovereignty unless expressly or impliedly recognized by the succeeding sovereign. The successor state is not bound by the obligations of the predecessor state merely by virtue of succession; recognition—whether express, implied, or through legislation—is required for such rights to become enforceable. This applies even if the grant was made by an absolute ruler, as the successor state''''s power to recognize or repudiate such rights stems from its own sovereignty, not from inherited powers of the predecessor. Thus, an undertaking by the erstwhile state does not bind the successor state unless the latter affirms or incorporates it into its legal framework.Checking relevance for Firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas VS State Of Rajasthan...
Firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas VS State Of Rajasthan - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 145 : The contractual liability of a former State is binding on a succeeding sovereign State only if the successor State recognizes that liability. The successor State is not automatically bound by the obligations of the predecessor State, nor is it subrogated ipso jure to the contracts of the former State. The contract of the predecessor State terminates with the change of sovereignty unless the successor State ratifies or recognizes the contract. The rights of subjects of the former State can only be enforced in the municipal courts of the new sovereign to the extent that the new sovereign has recognized such rights, either expressly or impliedly. This principle is based on the doctrine that the cession of territory by one State to another is an ''''act of State,'''' and municipal courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of such acts.Checking relevance for M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das...
M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1 : When there is a change of sovereignty from a former sovereign to a new sovereign, municipal courts of the new sovereign will not enforce legal rights of parties existing under the former sovereign absent an express recognition by the new sovereign of such legal rights. Recognition of property rights previously recognised in the old regime by the new sovereign need not be explicit and may be implied through conduct of the new sovereign and established through circumstantial evidence. However, the burden of proving existence of right in previous regime and recognition of right by new sovereign rests on the party claiming such a right. Municipal courts will only recognise those rights and liabilities which have been recognised by the new sovereign either expressly or impliedly through conduct established by evidence.Checking relevance for Gurmail Singh VS State Of Punjab...
Gurmail Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 627 : Under industrial law, a successor-in-business who takes over an undertaking is liable to meet the rights and obligations of the predecessor''''s employees, particularly in cases where the transfer is not a genuine arm''''s length transaction. The rights and obligations between the old management and its workers continue to exist vis-à-vis the new management after the transfer. This principle applies even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship between the employee and the successor. The industrial law takes a different view from civil law, where succession alone does not bind the successor to pre-existing debts or liabilities. In cases involving state or state instrumentality transfers, courts may intervene to ensure fairness and continuity of service, especially where the transfer is not genuine or where the successor is effectively controlled by the same entity. The court may direct the successor to continue employees on the same terms and conditions, particularly when the transfer is not a true change of ownership but a reorganization within the same entity. In such cases, the employee is entitled to continuity of service rather than compensation, and the principle of ''''fair play and social justice'''' overrides strict contractual or civil law principles.
