Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-23-1962
Reported in : AIR1963SC222; 2SCR353
..... said covenant the said rajpramukh issued, in ordinance applying all the laws obtaining in the state of patiala, including the patiala recovery of state dues act, 2002 bk., hereinafter called the act, to the entire state of pepsu. after the enquiry of six months, the rajapramukh issued a second ordinance extending for another six months the laws made applicable to the state of ..... to the appellants therein a large area of land belonging to the bettiah raj which was then under the management of the court of wards; the bihar legislature passed an act declaring that the settlements granted to the appellants shall be null and void and empowering the collector to eject the appellants if they refused to restore the lands. in ..... striking down the impugned enactment patanjali sastri, c.j., observed : 'this is purely a dispute between private parties and a matter for determination by duly constituted courts ..... force the discriminatory procedure cannot be continued. in suraj mall mahta & co. v. a.v. viswanath sastri : 26itr1(sc) , in the context of the same act, viz., act xxx of 1947, this court pointed out that though between the two procedures there was some similarity to be followed for catching evaded income, the overall picture was that there was substantial discrimination .....Tag this Judgment!