https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292110 Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was examined for Article 14 compliance because it left the municipal authority with an unguided choice between distraint and suit for recovering consolidated rate arrears. The Court treated that uncontrolled discretion as discrimination inherent in the statutory scheme and therefore void under Article 13. It also found the distraint process materially more onerous than a suit: it was summary, allowed only a short time to pay or show cause, and authorised immediate seizure and sale of movable property, whereas a suit offered fuller procedural safeguards and appeal rights. On that basis, enforcement of the distress warrant could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2020 14:24:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292110 Section 237 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was examined for Article 14 compliance because it left the municipal authority with an unguided choice between distraint and suit for recovering consolidated rate arrears. The Court treated that uncontrolled discretion as discrimination inherent in the statutory scheme and therefore void under Article 13. It also found the distraint process materially more onerous than a suit: it was summary, allowed only a short time to pay or show cause, and authorised immediate seizure and sale of movable property, whereas a suit offered fuller procedural safeguards and appeal rights. On that basis, enforcement of the distress warrant could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292110