Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)Section 21 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
In
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, , a Constitutional Bench of the supreme Court has held that in the absence of specific provision in the rule, the Government can issue administrative instructions. If the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. Therefore, the contention that the Government is lacking competency to issue the guidelines cannot be accepted.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1227, a constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that the price fixation is not within the province of the Court. Their lordships have observed as follows:-
The Corporation Of Calcutta vs Sm. Padma Debi And Others on 8 August, 1961
In corporation of Calcutta v. Smt. Padma Debi, , interpreting the Calcutta Municipalities Act, it was held that the rental value cannot be fixed higher than the standard rent under the Rent Control Act. It was held that a contract for rent at a rate higher than the standard rent is not only unenforceable, but also that the landlord would be committing an offence if he collects a rent above the standard rent.
Section 21 in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
1