SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(P&H) 72

R.P.KHOSLA, S.S.DULAT, S.B.CAPOOR
Harish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Amritsar – Respondent


Judgment

1. We are asked to consider in this case whether the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Punjab State Aid to Industries Act, 1935, are repugnant to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner, at whose instance this question has been raised, was granted a loan of Rs. 5000 in October., 1950, this being one or the forms in which State aid could be given by virtue of Section 17 of the Act. To secure the loan, a bond, mortgaging a piece of land with Government, was obtained. The loan had to be repaid at a certain lime, but the petitioner did not make any payment and, in consequence, the officer empowered under the Act, issued a notice under Section 23 of the Act, and, since this did not have any effect, the competent officer issued a declaration mentioning the amount due from the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act makes such a declaration conclusive evidence of its contents and permits the production of such a declaration in a civil Court as it it were a decree of a civil Court, and section 25 of the Act requires that on the production of such a declaration the civil Court will proceed to attach the property mentioned in the declaration and fur ther


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top