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

2002 Supreme(SC) 951

R.C.LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR
S. Shanmugavel Nadar – Appellant
Versus
State Of T. N. – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Looking at the nature of the controversy arising for decision and the view which we propose to take of the matter before us, a detailed statement of the facts is not called for. We will briefly notice bare essential facts. The Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1996) was enacted by the State Legislature and came into force w.e.f. 11th January, 1996. The constitutional validity of this Act was put in issue by several writ petitions filed in the High Court. When the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench reliance on behalf of the respondents in the High Court was placed on Division Bench decision of the High Court dated 25th January, 1972 reported as M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 85 Law Weekly 760.

3. Diverting a little in narration of facts it is necessary to note that at an earlier point of time the State Legislature had enacted the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1960 (Act No. 13 of 1960) whereby certain amendments were incorporated in the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Constitutional validity of Act No. 13 of 1960 was challenged by filing several writ petitions






















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