Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Elliot Waud And Hill Pvt. Ltd. vs Life Insurance Corporation And Anr. on 6 March, 1981

Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Additional District Judge on 8 November, 2019

12. On merits, the case of the petitioner-Corporation is that the respondents were in unauthorized occupation of a part of Bharat Estate Building, New Cannaught Place, Dehradun; the building belongs to the petitioner herein; the learned District Judge had allowed the appeal preferred by respondents 2 to 5 following the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in Elliot Waud And Hill Pvt. Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation (judgment in Misc. Petition No. 458 of 1979 dated 06.03.1981), wherein it was held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 suffered from lack of legislative competence in Parliament to make such a law which was referable to Entry-18 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India; and the provisions of the said Act could not be made applicable to the subject building, in view of the provisions of the Uttarakhand Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to the contrary.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Krishan Avatar Bahadur vs Col. Irwin Extross And Others on 6 November, 1984

10. It is necessary to consider the competence of Parliament to enact the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, bearing in mind the provisions of article 246 of the Constitution and the well- settled principles of interpretation of entries in the three Lists appearing in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. I am told that the decision of the single judge of this court in Elliot Wand and Hill P. Ltd. v. LIC [1981] Bom CR 590, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, has been challenged by preferring an appeal, and the appeal is pending. Apart from this, the decision in that case and the passages relied on by the learned counsel and reproduced above are of no help for deciding the point for consideration in this case. In that case, the vires of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were challenged. In the present case, the challenge is to the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, as far as they apply to immovable property. It was not disputed that Parliament is competent to legislate in the matter of companies under entries 43 and 44 appearing in List I - Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. As per entry 95 of the said list, Parliament can legislate in respect of the offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in that list. Section 630 of the Companies Act reproduced above provides penalty for the wrongful withholding of property by any officer or employee of a company. The powers of Parliament to legislate in respect of the affairs of a company relating to immovable property are in no way curtailed by entry 18 appearing in LIst II - State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Consequently, I reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act, so far as they relate to immovable property, are ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1