Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Northern India Caterers Private Ltd., & ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 April, 1967
14. Merely because the original authority is conferred power to avoid the dilatory procedure of trial in a Civil Court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, it cannot be said that the procedure provided in the Act is prejudicial in any way to the party concerned than the procedure under the ordinary law. On the other hand, in some respects, the procedure conferred by the Act is beneficial without in any way affecting the well-known rules of natural justice. Hence, there can be no question of discrimination merely because there are two modes of procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants in the absence of a further finding that one of them is more prejudicial than the other. The existence of prejudice between two modes of procedure was the main basis for the decision of their Lordships in Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. v. State of Punjab and that-clement is totally lacking in the present case. I must, therefore, reject the argument that the provisions of the Act are violative of Article 14.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10 in The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sri Sadasib Prakash Brahmachari vs The State Of Orissa(With Connected ... on 20 January, 1956
In Sadasib Prakash Brahmchari v. The State of Orissa where some of the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act were challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(f), their Lordships at page 437 observed as follows: