https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159945 The Supreme Court held that the challenged Ordinance violated Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution by allowing deprivation of property without compensation, and discriminated against shareholders, breaching Article 14. The plaintiff, having standing, successfully challenged the Ordinance due to its direct impact on property rights. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 08:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159945 The Supreme Court held that the challenged Ordinance violated Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution by allowing deprivation of property without compensation, and discriminated against shareholders, breaching Article 14. The plaintiff, having standing, successfully challenged the Ordinance due to its direct impact on property rights. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159945