Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1992
5. The said view has been recently followed with approval in the case of C.B. GOUTAM v. UNION OF INDIA, , wherein, while construing Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which during the material period did not provide for hearing the interested persons before passing an order for pre-emptive purchase, it was held that "the Courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant Sections a requirement of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected. This would be particularly so in a case where the validity of the Section would be open to a serious challenge for want of such an opportunity".
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
In the case of DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. D.T.C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS, (Pr. 199), it has been held that -
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
4. The case of OLGA TELLIS v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, , is a classic case to appreciate the widening horizons of the said principle. In this case Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provided that the Commissioner may, without notice, take steps for removal of encroachment in or upon any street, channel, drain, etc. To save the said provision from the vice of unconstitutionality as being conferring arbitrary and unguided powers, the Court read the provision as enabling and not compulsive in nature. It was held that -
Section 3 in Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 314 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Section 269UD in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1