” Rules were made by the Central Government under s. At p 926, Lord Morris (with whom Lord Cross agreed) also considered that, where the rule applies, a landlord will be liable once he has notice of the defect, even if that notice does not emanate from the tenant. The only limitation thereon is reason, restraint and injustice. It cannot be said that the mere giving of security for the debt by the purchaser was tantamount to payment.
It could not be passed by a Judge, Small Cause Court, before whom a suit for eviction as a special forum is maintainable under s. [271D-F] Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar if the, latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. These articles are designedly made comprehensive to enable the Supreme Court to declare law and to give such directions or pass such orders as are necessary to do complete justice.
5001- and an income-tax clearance certificate. 22 pres- cribes that an application for the grant of a mining lease must be made to the State Government in Form “I” accompanied by a 307 fee of Rs. 13 of the Act known as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In O’Brien v Robinson [1973] AC 912, the House of Lords confirmed that the rule applied to a covenant to repair implied into a tenancy by section 32(1)(a) of the 1961 Act.
As a fall back to their argument that the wrong test has been applied, the claimants in MA contend that the courts below failed to give the Reg B13 scheme sufficiently careful scrutiny and that, as a matter of principle, the availability of DHPs could not justify a reduction in the HB to which persons suffering from disabilities would be entitled but for Reg B13. In Bhairo Prasad’s case(1) the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907 was in operation and there a stranger to the insolvency complained of an act of attachment after the lapse of 21 days.
32, 141 and 142 are couched in such wide and elastic terms as to enable this Court to formulate legal doctrines to meet the ends of justice. However, Lord Diplock, with whom Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Reid (as well as Lord Cross) agreed, preferred to keep that point open. Though this point was not raised in the High Court, it is so obvious that we have permitted the appellant to raise it before us.
We are of opinion that on the finding that the appellant was a tres- passer, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to order his ejectment in a suit brought under s. 13 of the Act are satisfied. 908 Ordinary legislative Acts, and, like other Acts, is alter- able when the legislature shall please to alter it. “The Central Government may, of its own motion or on application made within the prescribed time by the aggrieved party, revise any order NRI Lawyers made by a State Government or other authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by or under this Act.
32, for nrillegalservices the enforcement of the fundamental rights the Supreme Court has the power to issue suitable directions or orders or writs. It is true that the appellate court was the court of an Extra Assistant Judge, but its jurisdiction could not be wider than that of the trial court and it would be equally circumscribed within the four corners of s. Article 141 says that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts; and Art.
142 enables it in the exercise of its jurisdiction to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for nrillegalservices doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. 26 the State Government is obliged to give reasons for refusal to grant a mining lease. But when NRI the appellate court held that the present appellant was a trespasser, there was NRI no jurisdiction under the Act to pass a decree for ejectment against a trespasser. Such a decree against a trespasser could only be passed by a regular civil court in a suit brought under the Code NRI Legal services of Civil Procedure.
The amount of consideration not received and which the purchasers agreed to pay in future for which plots were mortgaged in favour of the respondent company, could not therefore be considered to be taxable income for the assessment periods in question.