https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151188 Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the U.P. amendments, was treated as valid because repugnancy under Article 254 depends on a real collision between laws occupying the same field, and the Central amendment did not displace the State provision. The rule was also upheld under Article 14 since tenants in default of admitted rent formed a distinct class with a rational nexus to the object of protecting landlords from delay and hardship. Section 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 was held to apply to pending suits, appeals, applications, and proceedings, reflecting clear legislative intent for retrospective operation. en-us Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 16:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151188 Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as inserted by the U.P. amendments, was treated as valid because repugnancy under Article 254 depends on a real collision between laws occupying the same field, and the Central amendment did not displace the State provision. The rule was also upheld under Article 14 since tenants in default of admitted rent formed a distinct class with a rational nexus to the object of protecting landlords from delay and hardship. Section 97(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976 was held to apply to pending suits, appeals, applications, and proceedings, reflecting clear legislative intent for retrospective operation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151188