It was in the scheming planet of Fabrika that Joost and I saw the timelessness of Machiavelli and from our discussions in Venice, Italy, this book was born. CONCLUSION:- Exactly where a law produced by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list consists of any provision repugnant to the provisions of any earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter then the law so made by the legislature of the State shall if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent prevail in that state.
Iii) Power of legislation declaring earlier decision invalid unconstitutional:-In the case of State of Haryana v/s Karnal Co-Operative Farmer’s Society-1993, it has been held by the court that legislature has power to render ineffective the earlier judicial choices by removing or altering or neutralizing the legal basis in un amended law on which such decisions had been founded but it does not have the power to render ineffective the earlier judicial decisions.
Zipf’s law in corpus analysis and population distributions amongst other people, where frequency of an item or event is inversely proportional to its frequency rank (i.e. the second most frequent item/occasion happens half as typically the most frequent item, the third most frequent item/occasion happens 1 third as generally as the most frequent item, and so on).
DEFINITION OF TRADE, COMMERCE AND INTERCOURSE:- Article 301 of the constitution says, Trade and commerce and intercourse among the States whether by suggests of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall be absolutely no cost.” The word definitely totally free faces several difficulties so that is why in India the Constitution itself lays down restrictions on short article 301.
D) Ordinarily the Supreme Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of the trail court and the Higher Court unless there is adequate to do so as held in a case of Sultan Ahmad v/s State of Bihar-1975, Supreme Court had to enter into the merit of the case in order to avert grave and substantial injustice to the appellant who was evicted as a outcome of the wrong interpretation of the law.