Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Bidi Supply Co vs The Union Of India And Others on 20 March, 1956
The following oft-quoted observations of Bose J. in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India [1956] A.T.R. S.C. 479 are to the point (at page 485, para. 16):
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
6. Though for quite some time classification theory was held to be inseparable part of Article 14 by the Courts in India since the decision in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , a new trend of thinking has been set in. This article is held to be having a highly activist magnitude and embodying a guarantee against arbitrariness. It is observed (at page 583, para. 85):
Ramcharan Ramdin Ahir vs Resident Deputy Collector With Rent ... on 8 August, 1970
In my view, the bar contained in the. proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi)(a) is net so generals as to prevent a landlord, who is in possession of residential accommodation, from taking possession of shop premises or vice versa. It contemplates that the landlord is in possession of the premises which can be used or are being used for the same purpose for which the premises, of which possession is sought, arc being used
It is apparent that what has been interpreted is original Clause 13(3)(vi)(a) and not Clause 13(3)(vi) as it stands today. Moreover, it appears that the decision of Full Bench of this Court and so also the decision in Ramcharan's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. In my view while interpreting proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) as it now stands there is no scope to draw such distinction in view of Full Bench decision which has a binding force.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
This view is reiterated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , and so also in Ajaya Hasia v. Khalid Mujib .
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
This view is reiterated in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , and so also in Ajaya Hasia v. Khalid Mujib .
Eknath Bhanudas Utane vs Shankarrao Deorao Jumde And Anr. on 5 September, 1969
This conflict of decision led to the constitution of a Full Bench which in Eknath Bhanudas v. Shankarrao (1971) Mh. LJ. 546, agreeing with the later view held that the landlord in occupation of a house or a portion of a house of his own in the town or city concerned has no right at all to apply for permission to evict his tenant on the ground of his bona fide need irrespective of its extent or purpose. The ultimate consequence of this decision was that, that class of landlords who had even a portion of the house in their occupation could not maintain an application under this clause, howsoever genuine the need may be. Very close to the pronouncement of this judgment, followed a challenge to this proviso as interpreted by the Full Bench, based on Article 19(1)(f) and 14 of the Constitution.
1