AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962
  • U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act 33 of 1972
  • Constitutional points (Not a specific act/article title)
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act (Not mentioned)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962
  • U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act 33 of 1972
  • Constitutional points (Not a specific act/article title)
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act (Not mentioned)
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Hasinuddin Khan And Others v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others

    Y.V Chandrachud, C.J— In view of the judgments of this Court in (1) State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jethabai AIR 1951 SC 69, 1951 SCR 51, 1951 SCJ 103 (2) Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Company AIR 1962 SC 256, (1962) 3 SCR 497, (1962) 2 SCJ 179, and (3) Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh AIR 1968 SC 714, (1968) 2 SCR 95, (1968) 2 SCJ 480 and in view of the fact that the special leave petition filed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 Act was dismissed by the Constitution Bench of this Court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 or the U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the ground of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the civil appeals and the special leave petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

    2. However, the appellants may, if so advised, ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We are sure that the delay caused in filing the SLP in this Court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this Court.

    3. Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal 543 of 1975 says that the appellant has already filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) 361 of 1976 in this Court challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on the merits of the matter. He has also filed an application seeking leave of this Court for urging additional grounds and an application for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. The petition for permission to urge additional grounds, except on constitutional points, shall be treated as having been filed in the SLP. These three petitions will be listed before the Division Bench on October 4, 1979.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Hasinuddin Khan And Others v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others
    (Sep 13, 1979)