Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area And ... vs Ganga Prasad And Anr. on 7 February, 1956

Ch. Mukhtar Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 8 October, 1956

An appeal or revision are both provided for from the decisions of the officers deciding questions other than questions of title under the Act. The bar to the civil Court's jurisdiction in Section 49 cannot be said to be unreasonable. If recourse were allowed to a party to agitate a matter in a civil Court, it would defeat the very object of the Act because consolidation proceedings will be held up till the matter is finally disposed of by the original civil Court and the second appellate and the revisional Courts. No support can be derived by the petitioners from the decision of this Court in Brigade Commander v. Ganga Prasad, 1956 All LJ 251 : ((S) AIR 1956 All 507) (H), as the facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ch. Moinuddin vs Deputy Director Military Lands And ... on 8 February, 1956

12. We have given reason in 'Brigade Commander, Meerut v. Ganga Prasad', Special Appeal No. 201 of 1954 : ((S) AIR 1956 All 507) (G), for holding that the Act contravenes the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and is therefore void under Article 13(2). It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact the said Act in view of the provisions of the U. P. Tenancy Act, or whether the aforesaid Act was void as contravening Article 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Bhartiya Hotel And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 21 December, 1967

The decisions referred to in the said preamble are Jagu Singh v. Shaukat Ali, (1954) 58 Cal WN 1066, Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR ,1956 All 507 and Ch. Moinuddin v. Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, AIR 1956 All 684. But, merely because a speedier remedy is provided by a special Act, it cannot be said that that Act is prejudicial to a person. On the contrary, it is well known that the inordinate delay in Civil Courts has made litigants almost despair of getting any relief under the normal procedure, and, if a speedier remedy is provided, it may, in a sense, be held to be beneficial to all concerned. It is true that, if valuable rights to property of a person are left for adjudication by executive officers, prejudice may be caused. But here, the Legislature has been wiser, and though the original authority may be an executive officer described as the Estate Officer, an appeal is provided to the District Judge This is also made clear in the Statement of Objects and Reasons:
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Bhartiya Hotel And 3 Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 21 December, 1967

The decisions referred to in the said preamble are Jagu Singh v. M. Shaukat Ali 58 C.W.N. 1066 Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad and Ch. Moinuddin v. Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command . But, merely because a speedier remedy is provided by a special Act, it cannot be said that that Act is prejudicial to a person. On the contrary, it is well known that the inordinate delay in Civil Courts has made litigants almost despair of getting any relief under the normal procedure, and, if a speedier remedy is provided, it may, in a sense, be held to be beneficial to all concerned. It is true that, if valuable rights to property of a person are left for adjudication by executive officers, prejudice may be caused. But, here, the Legislature has been wiser, and though the original authority may be an executive officer described as the Estate Officer, an appeal is provided to the District Judge. This is also made clear in the statement of Objects and Reasons:
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Chander And Anr. vs Delhi Improvement Trust, Etc. on 5 September, 1957

The learned Subordinate Judge has only dealt with the question of the validity of the Act, which apparently has already been held to be ultra vires by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case Jagu Singh v. Shaukat Ali, 58 Cal W. N. 1066 (A) and also by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad, (S) AIR 1956 Ml. 507 (B). In the circumstances, with the agreement of the learned counsel for the defendant in the suit, he framed the question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sadhu Singh S. Mula Singh vs District Board, Gurdaspur on 10 April, 1958

In Brigade Commander, Meerut v. Ganga Prasad, (S) AIR 1956 All 507, the same Act was declared ultra vires as contravening the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 was held to be applicable with full force to a situation where a person occupying Government premises was not afforded the same protection as was afforded to a person occupying private land and differential treatment had no reasonable connection with the objects sought to be achieved.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - A N Grover - Full Document

Wire Netting Stores vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner ... on 19 February, 1970

12. The decisions in Satish Chander v. Delhi Improvement Trust, , Jagu Singh v. Shaukat Alil, 58 Cal Wn 1066 and Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad, are also distinguishable. They invalidated the provisions of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, because the Act empowered the Competent Authority to summarily evict persons alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of Government premises without giving them any opportunity to show cause against such eviction. This unfettered and arbitrary power was ubject only to an appeal to the Government. But section 7-A on the other hand expressly requires the Commissioner to give a hearing to the employer. Further the decision of the Commissioner is subject to review by the Central Government under Section 19-A and also by the Civil courts, by the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Punjab National Bank And Ors. Etc. Etc on 7 August, 1990

WN 1066) and by the Punjab High Court (in Satish Chander & Anr. v. Delhi Im- provement Trust, Etc., AIR 1958 Punjab 1) on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restriction on the fight of the citizens to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and by the Allahabad High Court (in Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 All. 507) on the ground that it was violative 659 of the rights to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 530 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 Next