https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192697 The eviction order was restored because the non-joinder objection was treated as hyper-technical. The Court held that the Director, Deputy Director and Secretary of the Institute were already parties to the proceedings and sufficiently represented the Union of India's interest in the premises. On that basis, separate impleadment of the Union was not essential, and interference under Article 226 on this ground was unwarranted. The High Court's decision setting aside the eviction order was therefore found to be erroneous. en-us Tue, 26 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:21:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192697 The eviction order was restored because the non-joinder objection was treated as hyper-technical. The Court held that the Director, Deputy Director and Secretary of the Institute were already parties to the proceedings and sufficiently represented the Union of India's interest in the premises. On that basis, separate impleadment of the Union was not essential, and interference under Article 226 on this ground was unwarranted. The High Court's decision setting aside the eviction order was therefore found to be erroneous. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192697