<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (10) TMI 275 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183971</link>
    <description>The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was upheld as within Parliament&#039;s legislative competence. Applying pith and substance, the Court held that the Act&#039;s dominant purpose is to provide a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, with ancillary provisions on notice, inquiry, appeal, recovery of arrears, damages, and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. On that basis, it was supportable under Entry 32 of List I as relating to Union property and the revenue from it. The Court further held that Parliament could also legislate in relation to Government companies and their premises under the Union legislative field, including the residuary power, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:24:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (10) TMI 275 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183971</link>
      <description>The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was upheld as within Parliament&#039;s legislative competence. Applying pith and substance, the Court held that the Act&#039;s dominant purpose is to provide a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, with ancillary provisions on notice, inquiry, appeal, recovery of arrears, damages, and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. On that basis, it was supportable under Entry 32 of List I as relating to Union property and the revenue from it. The Court further held that Parliament could also legislate in relation to Government companies and their premises under the Union legislative field, including the residuary power, and the constitutional challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>