Home / Supreme Court / Diary 61/1956

ASA RAM v. THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Supreme Court of India | Diary 61/1956

Status

Judgment

Decided On

1958-12-03

Bench

DAS SUDHI RANJAN (CJ),BHAGWATI NATWARLAL H.,SINHA BHUVNESHWAR P.,SUBBARAO K.,WANCHOO K.N.

Petitioner

ASA RAM

Respondent

THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7

PETITIONER: ASA RAM

Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT BOARD, MUZAFFARNAGAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/1958

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION: 1959 AIR 480 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 715

ACT: Conflict of Statutes-Two statutes conferring same power on two different bodies-Construction-’Committee’ and ’Panchayat’, if identical in meanning-Power to regulate, if includes power to require taking out of licence-U. P. District Boards Act (U. P. X of 1922), ss. 93(3), 106 and 174(1)(k)-U. P. Town Areas Act (U. P. II of 1914) as amended in 1934, S. 26(a).

HEADNOTE: The appellant was running machines with the aid of power in a locality which was admittedly within the jalalabad Town Area. He did not take out a licence for running the machines as required by the Muzaffarnagar Factories Bye-laws framed by the respondent, the District Board Muzaffarnagar, under s. 174(1)(k) read with s. 106 of the U. P. District Boards Act, and was prosecuted by the respondent. The appellant contended that the bye-laws did not apply to the town area and it was not necessary for him to take out a licence. Section 174(1)(k) of the District Boards Act and s. 26(a) of the Town Areas Act both provided for the regulation...

Related

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India