Law and Case Commentaries

  [2] Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan [1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933] 1) If an Act is included in the 9th Schedule of Constitution of India then it gets the shield of Article 31-B of the Constitution. 2) Article 31B provided that none of the Acts specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void. 3) The constituent power conferred by Art. 368 on the Parliament can also be exercised both prospectively and retrospectively. 4) The effect of the last clause in Art. 31B is to leave it open to the respective legislatures to repeal or amend the Acts which have been included in the Ninth Schedule. 5) Acts have been included in the Ninth Schedule with a view to make them valid, does not mean that the legislatures in question which passed the said Acts have lost their competence to repeal them or to amend them. Please support me by donating a small amount of Rs. 11 (Eleven) only by scanning this QR code

  [1] Prem Lala Nahata & Anr vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria (Supreme Court of Bharat) 1) The Code of Civil Procedure as its preamble indicates, is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature. 2) The very object of consolidation is to collect the law bearing upon the particular subject and in bringing it upto date. 3) A consolidating Act is to be construed by examining the language of such a statute and by giving it its natural meaning uninfluenced by considerations derived from the previous state of the law. 4) Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the Court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. 5) The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. 6) The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending i

[1] Mrs. Mary Roy Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 February, 1986 [1986 AIR 1011, 1986 SCR (1) 371] जुलाई 1949 से पहले त्रावणकोर राज्य एक प्रिंस बी राज्य था और वहां रहने वाले ईसाई समुदाय के सदस्यों की संपत्ति के निर्वसीयत उत्तराधिकार के संबंध में उस राज्य के क्षेत्रों में लागू कानून त्रावणकोर ईसाई उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम 1916 था। भारत में रहने वाले ईसाई समुदाय के विभिन्न वर्गों के लिए अलग-अलग कानून हैं। यह ईसाइयों के साथ उनके वर्ग और लिंग के आधार पर भेदभाव करता है। कई ईसाई क्षेत्रों में महिलाओं को कुछ अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं हैं। त्रावणकोर ईसाई उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम के अधिनियमन के उद्देश्यों और कारणों के विवरण में कहा गया है कि "ईसाई समुदाय के विभिन्न वर्गों के उपयोग सभी मामलों में सहमत नहीं हैं। ईसाइयों के विभिन्न वर्गों के लिए अलग-अलग कानून न तो वांछनीय है और न ही व्यावहारिक है और ऐसा होने की संभावना है।" बहुत अधिक मुकदमेबाजी और परेशानी का कारण बना। इसलिए भारतीय ईसाइयों के सभी विभिन्न वर्गों के लिए एक सामान्य कानून बनाना आवश्यक समझा गया।" त्रावणकोर ईसाई उत्तराधिकार अध

  [1] Mrs. Mary Roy Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 February, 1986 [1986 AIR 1011, 1986 SCR (1) 371] Prior to July 1949 the State of Travancore was a Prince B State and the law in force in the territories of that state in regard to intestate succession to the property of members of the Christian community residing there, was the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1916. There are separate laws for different segments of the Christian community residing in India. This discriminates the Christians on the basis of their segments and their gender. Women are not having certain rights in many Christian segments. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of Travancore Christian Succession Act provided that "the usages of the various sections of the Christian community do not agree in all respects. Separate legislation for the various sections of Christians is neither desirable nor practicable and is likely to lead to much litigation and trouble. It is therefore thou