Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
The Gujarat University, ... vs Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar And ... on 21 February, 1962
Showing the contexts in which doctrine of pith and substance appears in the document
Change context size
Current

entry, it is liable to be struck down on the ground that it may possibly come into conflict with another by a co-ordinate legislature under another entry. If the impact of a State law on a Central subject has the effect of wiping out or abridging the Central field, then the State law may be held to be a colourable exercise of power and that in pith and substance it falls not under the State entry but under the Union entry. The case-law does not, however, recognise an independent principle of direct impact outside the doctrine of pith and substance. Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 60,. State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, [1951] S.C.R. 682, A. S. Krishna v. State of Madras, [1957] S.C.-R. 399, Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia Ltd. v. Bryden [1899] A.C. 580, Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, [1882] 12 A.C. 575 and Attorney General for Alberta v. Attorney General for Canada, [1939] A.C. 117, discussed. The well-settled rules of interpretation are that the widest amplitude should be given to the language of the Entries and when