0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What has the author Golak Bihari Misra written?
Golak Bihari Misra has written: 'Mine ventilation' -- subject(s): Mine ventilation
What was the Golak Nath case?
The Golaknath case is officially known as Golaknath vs State Of Punjab. The Golaknath case took place in 1967 Indian in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Parliament could not decrease any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
What was Golak Nath's case?
The Golaknath case is officially known as Golaknath vs State Of Punjab. The Golaknath case took place in 1967 Indian in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Parliament could not decrease any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
What actors and actresses appeared in Bamuner Meye - 1949?
The cast of Bamuner Meye - 1949 includes: Prabhadevi as Rashmoni Tulsi Chakraborty as Golak Chatujjye Sunil Das Gupta as Arun Anubha Gupta as Sandhya Suprava Mukherjee as Thakurma Pahadi Sanyal as Priya Mukherjee Sova Sen as Gyanada
What is the holy place for Sikhs called?
It is a called a Gurudwara where the holly book the Curu Granth Sahib is put and people go to have langar(free food) and bow in front of the holy book. they do social service and donate money in the golak(money bank). there is a special Gurudwara called the golden temple where they have a place full of holly water where you can purify your self by having a bath.
What is keshwanand bharti case?
In 1967, in Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, a bench of eleven judges (constituted for the first time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. This question had previously been considered in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In both cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. Chief Justice Subba Rao writing for the majority (five judges dissenting) held that: * A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13. * Article 13 prevents the passing of laws which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions. * Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure. * The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament. * Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed. The Kesavananda case (1973) Six years later in 1973, thirteen judges of the Supreme Court, including then Chief Justice Sikri, heard arguments in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala and thus considered the validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th amendments, and more basically the correctness of the decision in the Golak Nath case. This time, the court held, by the thinnest of margins of 7-6, that although no part of the constitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament (thus overruling the 1967 case), the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment". However nine judges (including two dissentients) signed a summary stating that "the view of the majority" in the case was 1. Golak Nath's case is overruled. 2. Article 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. The Emergency (1975) In 1975, shortly after the imposition of the Emergency, a bench of thirteen judges was hastily assembled to hear the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain. Presided over by Chief Justice A.N. Ray, the court had to determine the degree to which amendments were restricted by the basic structure theory. On November 10 and 11, the team of civil libertarian barristers-again led by Palkhivala-continuously argued against the Union government's application for reconsideration of the Kesavananda decision. Some of the judges accepted his argument on the very first day, the others on the next; by the end of the second day, the Chief Justice was reduced to a minority of one. On the morning of November 12 Chief Justice Ray tersely pronounced that the bench was dissolved, and the judges rose. The doctrine could thus famously be applied in Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain to the 39th Amendment of 1975, which attempted, among other provisions, to pass legislative judgment over the election of Indira Gandhi in 1971. [edit] Extending the doctrine (1981) The doctrine was expanded in the Minerva Mills case of 1981. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Palkhivala successfully moved the Supreme Court to declare that Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 of the Constitution are invalid. These clauses had been inserted as a response by the Gandhi government to the decision in the Kesavananda case by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, s. 55. The clauses read: (4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement of section 55 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in question in any court on any ground. (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article. The Court held that since, as had been previously held in the Kesavananda case, the power of Parliament to amend the constitution was limited, it could not by amending the constitution convert the power into an unlimited power (as it had purported to do by this amendment). The court went on to invalidate the amendment of Article 31-C by the Forty-second Amendment. This view of Article 31-C, but not the basic structure doctrine, was questioned but not overruled in Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co v Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd.
What are merits and demerits of preference share?
DefinitionThe capital of a company is divided into number of equal parts known as shares. Preference sharesAs the name suggests, there have been certain preference as compared to other type of shares. These shares are given two preferences. There is a preference for payment of dividend. The second preference for shares is repayment of capital at the remaining of the profits.Feature of preferences shares1. Preference share have been priority over payment of dividend and repayment of capital.2. Preferences shares do not hold voting rights.a. Cumulative preference shares:- these shares have been a right to claim dividend for those years also for which there were no profits.b. Non cumulating preference shares:- the holders of these share have no claim for the arrears of dividend. They are paid a dividend if there are sufficient profits.c. Redeemable preference share:- neither the company can return the share capital nor the shareholder can demand its repayment.d. Irredeemable preference shares:- the shares which cannot be redeemed unless the company is liquidated are known as irredeemable preference shares.Advantages1. Helpful in raising long term capital for a company2. There is no need to mortgage property on these shares.3. Redeemable preference shares have the added advantages of repayment of capital whenever there is surplus in the company.4. Rate of return is guaranteed.Disadvantages1. Permanent burden on the company to pay a fixed rate of dividend before paying anything on the other shares.2. Not advantageous to investors from the point of view of control and management as preferences shares do not carry voting rights.3. Compared to other fixed interest bearing securities such as debentures, usually the cost of raising the preference share capital is higher.By Golak SahuMBA-Finance
What happens in a service in a gurdwara?
Sikhs will read the Guru Granth Sahib, and then bow down, and pay offerings to it in the Golak. They will then take their seat again and others will follow. All people of all religions are welcomed, but only Sikhs may worship the Guru Granth Sahib. After everybody has prayed to the Guru, they will be invited down into the Langar. The Langar is a free community kitchen which offers all people to sit down and eat with the Sikhs. They only serve vegetatious food, as all Sikhs are vegetarians.
What is inside a Gurdwara?
Two things are must in a Gurdwara: 1. Sri Guru Granth Sahib. ( There must be "Prakash" of Guru Granth Sahib as per the procedure described in "Sikh Rehat Maryada") 2. Nishaan Sahib ( A saffron (Basanti ) or Dark Blue ( Surmai ) color Flag.) Without any of these, No place can be considered as a Gurdwara.
What movie and television projects has Tulsi Chakraborty been in?
Tulsi Chakraborty has: Performed in "Punarjanma" in 1932. Performed in "Sreegouranga" in 1933. Played Brahma in "Dakshayajna" in 1934. Played Amatya in "Rajnati Basantsena" in 1934. Performed in "Kanthahaar" in 1935. Played Nanda in "Prabas Milan" in 1937. Played Pitambar in "Bekar Nashan" in 1938. Played Jambaban in "Nara Narayana" in 1939. Played Kashyap in "Bamanabatar" in 1939. Played Janak in "Janak Nandini" in 1939. Played Bachal in "Kamale Kamini" in 1940. Played Adwaita in "Nimai Sanyasi" in 1940. Played Ramrup in "Uttarayan" in 1941. Performed in "Pratisruti" in 1941. Performed in "Saugandh" in 1942. Performed in "Pashan Devata" in 1942. Performed in "Dampati" in 1943. Performed in "Devar" in 1943. Performed in "Dikshul" in 1943. Performed in "Hamrahi" in 1944. Played Chaudhary in "Meri Bahen" in 1944. Performed in "Udayer Pathey" in 1944. Performed in "Subah Shyam" in 1944. Performed in "Dui Purush" in 1945. Performed in "Kalankini" in 1945. Played Nayeb in "Mane Na Mane" in 1945. Performed in "Bhabhi Kaal" in 1945. Performed in "Pratima" in 1946. Performed in "Suleh" in 1946. Performed in "Biraj Bou" in 1946. Performed in "Mandir" in 1946. Performed in "Ramprasad" in 1947. Performed in "Anirban" in 1948. Performed in "Banchita" in 1948. Performed in "Purabi" in 1948. Performed in "Samapika" in 1948. Played Golak Chatujjye in "Bamuner Meye" in 1949. Performed in "Bishnupriya" in 1949. Performed in "Mantramugdhu" in 1949. Performed in "Sakahigopal" in 1949. Performed in "Ashabari" in 1949. Performed in "Manzoor" in 1949. Performed in "Kavi" in 1949. Performed in "Rupkatha" in 1950. Performed in "Mandanda" in 1950. Performed in "Sheshbesh" in 1950. Played Nabin in "Mejdidi" in 1950. Performed in "Baikunther Will" in 1950. Performed in "Pandit Mashai" in 1951. Performed in "Meghmukti" in 1952. Performed in "Swapno O Samadhi" in 1952. Performed in "Darpachurna" in 1952. Performed in "Bana Hansi" in 1953. Performed in "Nabin Yatra" in 1953. Played Rajanibabu in "Sharey Chuattar" in 1953. Performed in "Ora Thakey Odharey" in 1954. Performed in "Moner Mayur" in 1954. Performed in "Jadubhatta" in 1954. Played Digambar in "Jaydev" in 1954. Performed in "Sadanander Mela" in 1954. Performed in "Naramedh Yagna" in 1954. Performed in "Grihapravesh" in 1954. Performed in "Champadangar Bou" in 1954. Performed in "Shreebatsa Chinta" in 1955. Performed in "Shap Mochan" in 1955. Performed in "Du-janay" in 1955. Performed in "Bhalobasa" in 1955. Played Ghatak in "Upahar" in 1955. Performed in "Devimalini" in 1955. Performed in "Godhuli" in 1955. Performed in "Sabar Uparey" in 1955. Performed in "Nishiddha Phal" in 1955. Performed in "Kalindi" in 1955. Performed in "Aparadhi" in 1955. Played Prasanna, school teacher in "Pather Panchali" in 1955. Performed in "Joymakali Boarding" in 1955. Performed in "Asamapta" in 1956. Performed in "Chore" in 1956. Performed in "Shyamali" in 1956. Played Gossainji in "Ekti Raat" in 1956. Performed in "Ogo Shunchho" in 1957. Performed in "Adarsha Hindu Hotel" in 1957. Performed in "Chandranath" in 1957. Performed in "Harjit" in 1957. Performed in "Prithibi Amare Chaay" in 1957. Performed in "Abhoyer Biye" in 1957. Performed in "Khela Bhangar Khela" in 1957. Performed in "Harishchandra" in 1957. Performed in "Kancha-Mithey" in 1957. Performed in "Surya Toran" in 1958. Performed in "Joutuk" in 1958. Played Paresh Chandra Dutta in "Parash Pathar" in 1958. Played Ratan in "Rajlakshmi O Srikanta" in 1958. Performed in "Sonar Kathi" in 1958. Performed in "Indrani" in 1958. Performed in "Rajdhani Theke" in 1958. Performed in "Ajantrik" in 1958. Performed in "Derso Khokhar Kando" in 1959. Performed in "Chaowa-Pawa" in 1959. Played Publisher in "Personal Assistant" in 1959. Performed in "Gali Theke Rajpath" in 1959. Performed in "Khoka Babur Pratyabartan" in 1960. Performed in "Khudha" in 1960. Performed in "Shesh Paryanta" in 1960. Performed in "Dui Bechara" in 1960. Performed in "Suno Baranari" in 1960. Played Adhikary in "Kuhak" in 1960. Performed in "Maya Mriga" in 1960. Performed in "Aaj Kal Parshu" in 1961. Performed in "Dui Bhai" in 1961. Performed in "Kanchanmulya" in 1961. Performed in "Bishkanya" in 1961. Performed in "Kanamachi" in 1961. Performed in "Banarasi" in 1962. Performed in "Hasi Shudhu Hasi Noy" in 1963. Played Hospital Employee in "Saptapadi" in 1963. Performed in "Dui Bari" in 1963.
Whether preamble of Indian constitution is part of Indian constitution?
Preamble:- A Part Of The Constitution Or NotThe vexed question whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution or not was dealt with in two leading cases on the subject:1. Berubari case [1]2. Kesavananda Bharti case [2]On the answer to the primary question- whether the Preamble is a part of the Constitution, would depend the resolution of the next question, which follows as a corollary- whether the Preamble can be amended, if at all.Berubari case was the Presidential Reference "Under Art. 143(1) of the Constitution of India on the implementation of the Indo-Pak agreement relating to Berubari union and exchange of enclaves" which come up for consideration by a bench consisting of eight judges headed by B.P.Sinha, C.J. Justice Gajendragadkar delivered the unanimous opinion of the court. Quoting story, the eminent Constitutional jurist, the court held that the Preamble to the Constitution containing the declaration made by the people of India in exercise of their sovereign will, no doubt is "a key to open the minds of framers of the Constitution" which may show the general purposes for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution but nevertheless the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.The holdings in Berubari Case has been succinctly summed up later by Shelat and Grover, JJ. In Kesavananda Bharti case as under:1. A Preamble to the Constitution serves as a key to open the minds of the framers, and shows the general purpose for which they made the several provisions in the Constitution;2. The Preamble is not a part of our Constitution;3. It is not a source of the several powers conferred on government under the provisions of the Constitution;4. Such powers embrace those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those granted;5. What is true about the powers is equally true about the prohibitions and limitations;6. The Preamble did not indicate the assumptions that the first part of the Preamble postulates a very serious limitation on one of the very important attributes of sovereignty.Berubari case was relied on in Golaknath case [3], Wanchoo, J. said- "On a parity of reasoning we are of the opinion that the Preamble cannot prohibit or control in any way or impose any implied prohibitions or limitationson the bar to amend the Constitution contained in Article 368".Bachawat, J. observed- "Moreover the Preamble cannot control the unambiguous language of the Articles of the Constitution".It is a matter of regret, yet the eminent Judges constituting the bench answering the presidential reference in Berubari Case overlooked a matter of record, that constitutional history. The motion adopted by the Constituent Assembly stated in so many words that the Preamble stands as a part of the Constitution. The error came to be corrected in Kesavananda Bharti case where the majority specifically ruled that the Preamble was as much a part of the constitution as any other provision therein. It would be interesting to note what some out of the thirteen Judges constituting the bench which decided Kesavananda Bharti case had to say about the preamble.Kesavanada Bharati Case has created a history. For the first time, a bench of 13 Judges assembled and sat in its original jurisdiction hearing the writ petition. 13 Judges placed on record 11 separate opinions. It is not an easy task to find out the ratio of the holding of the court in the same case. It was held in this case:a. that the Preamble to the Constitution of India is a part of Constitutionb. that the Preamble is not a source of power nor a source of limitationsc. the Preamble has a significant role to play in the interpretation of statues, also in the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution.Moreover in Bommai case [4] the majority of nine Judges laid down a new application of the Preamble under the Constitution, which is as follows:1. The Preamble indicates the basic Structure of the Constitution2. A Proclamation under Article 356(1) is open to judicial review on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution.3. It follows that a proclamation under Article 356(1), which violates any of the basic features, as summarized in the Preamble of the Constitution is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.4. A further extension of this innovation is that a political party, which appeals to religion in its election manifesto, acts in violation of the basic structure, and the President may impose President's Rule on a report of the Governor that a party has issued such a manifesto.In the same case three of the nine Judges have opined that the word "secularism" in the Preamble of our Constitution.A discussion on Preamble cannot be complete without making a reference of Mandal Commission case [5], which was decided by a larger bench of nine Judges. A rainbow of judicial thoughts reflecting the significance, value and message of the Preamble. B.P. Jeevan, J. held that the four folding objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity displays statesmanship of the highest order - Constitution of India.. The framers of the Constitution did not rest content with evolving the framework of the state; they also pointed out the goal as spelled out in the Preamble and the methodology for reaching that goal is elaborated in parts of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. the preamble to the constitution is a turning point in history. The Preamble of the constitution has the sentiments and it is the key to the minds of the framers of the Constitution.Endnotes1. In Re:berubari union(1) (1960) 3 SCR 2502. Kesavananda Bharti V. state of kerala (1973) 4 SCC 2253. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, !1967) 2 SCR 7624. S.R.Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 15. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
What activities happen in a Gurdwara?
In a Gurdwara, you pray and listen to kirtan (songs about God that are sung and played for Him). You can also read the holy book called "The Guru Granth Sahib" and use and cover it with different fabrics made for that reason that you buy and can bring there. In Gurdwaras, you are served prasad (food that is purified after praying and serving it to God) after all these prayers.
