Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Rakesh Vij vs Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi And Others on 30 September, 2005

Satyawati Sharma (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India & Another on 16 April, 2008

Therefore, the reason/cause which prompted the Division Bench of the High Court to sustain the differentiation/classification of the premises with reference to the purpose of their user, is no longer available for negating the challenge to Section 14(1)(e) on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot uphold such arbitrary classification ignoring the ratio of Harbilas Rai Bansal vs. State of Punjab (supra), which was reiterated in Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal (supra) and approved by three- Judges Bench in Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi (supra). In our considered view, the discrimination which was latent in Section 14(1)(e) at the time of enactment of 1958 Act has, with the passage of time (almost 50 years) has become so pronounced that the impugned provision cannot be treated intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution by applying any rational criteria.
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 1265 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Rajbir Pal & Anr. vs Kanwar Partap Singh on 25 April, 2023

Therefore, the reason/cause which prompted the Division Bench of the High Court to sustain the differentiation/classification of the premises with reference to the purpose of their user, is no longer available for negating the challenge to Section 14(1)(e) on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot uphold such arbitrary classification ignoring the ratio of Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab [(1996) 1 SCC 1] , which was reiterated in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal [(2002) 5 SCC 397] and approved by three-Judge Bench in Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi [(2005) 8 SCC 504] . In our considered view, the discrimination which was latent in Section 14(1)(e) at the time of enactment of the 1958 Act has, with the passage of time (almost 50 years), become so pronounced that the impugned provision cannot be treated intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution by applying any rational criteria.
Delhi High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 2 - S Prasad - Full Document

Vinod Kumar vs Ashok Kumar Gandhi on 5 August, 2019

Judges Bench in Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi (supra). In our considered view, the discrimination which was latent in Section 14(1)(e) at the time of enactment of 1958 Act has, with the passage of time (almost 50 years) has become so pronounced that the impugned provision cannot be treated intra vires Article 14 of the Constitution by applying any rational criteria.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 12 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs Ved Parkash & Ors on 17 December, 2009

22. Before parting with this Judgment, a short submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs to be dealt with. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of Harbilas (supra) and Rakesh Vij (Supra) were rendered on the amendments made to East Punjab Rent Act, whereas the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain (supra) and the issue before 1 us concerned removing a classification which existed from the inception of the legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 13 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Vineet vs Vishal Sohal on 11 November, 2025

22. Before parting with this Judgment, a short submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs to be dealt with. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of Harbilas (supra) and Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, (2005) 8 SCC 504, were rendered on the amendments made to East Punjab Rent Act, whereas the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724 and the issue before us concerned removing a classification which existed from the inception of the legislation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Vineet vs Vishal Sohal on 11 November, 2025

22. Before parting with this Judgment, a short submission of the learned counsel for the appellant needs to be dealt with. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the case of Harbilas (supra) and Rakesh Vij vs. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi, (2005) 8 SCC 504, were rendered on the amendments made to East Punjab Rent Act, whereas the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724 and the issue before us concerned removing a classification which existed from the inception of the legislation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next