Surinder Shah

< Previous Part  If I were to interpret Article 31 (2) as meaning that even an arbitrary or illusory or a grossly low amount could be given, which would shock not only the judicial conscience but the conscience of every reasonable human being, a serious question would arise whether [...]

< Previous Part It is for the State to decide whether it should pay market price and buy or resort to Article 31 (2) and pay an amount which may be administratively feasible but less than the market price. It may take on hire and not buy at all, it may requisition without paying full [...]

< Previous Part Let us now examine the fatal constitutional vices, embedded in the Act and discovered at the High Court level. One such lethal feature which appealed to the High Court, and has been repeated before us by Shri Asoke Sen with insistence, is that there is no public purpose [...]

< Previous Part Bela Banerjee's case (supra). Then came the decision in State of Gujarat v. Shri Shantilal MangaldaS N Ors (4) where Shah J., as he then was in his leading judgment to which was appended a short concurring note by Hidayatullah C. J., made a conspicuous departure from the [...]

< Previous Part On the interpretations aforesaid which we have put to the relevant provisions of the Act, it was difficult-rather impossible-to argue that the amount so fixed will be arbitrary or illusory. In some respects it may be inadequate but that cannot be a ground for challenge of the [...]