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

1959 Supreme(Bom) 120

J.R.MUDHOLKAR, VASANTI A.NAIK
Bhimrao Ekanth and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Patilbua Ramkishan – Respondent


JUDGMENT - (1) Two questions bearing on the law of pre-emptions have been referred to us by the learned chief Justice on the recommendation of Justice Miabhoy. these questions are:-

(1) Has the right of pre-emption become void under Article 13 read with Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

and

(2) Did the law of pre-emption prevailing in the former Hyderabad state require that the right should subsist on the date of the decree also?

In Civil Reference No. 14 of 1959 the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Pardi, has referred one question to the High Court. That question is whether the custom of pre-emption is inconsistent and void under the Indian Constitution of 1950. The learned Chief Justice has referred the question to us.

(2) We heard both the matters together and at considerable length. My learned brogher proposes to examine in detail the arguments advanced before us as well as the various decisions, which were cited at the bar. since the main question that is, whether the law of pre-emption has been rendered void by the Constitution is of considerable importance, I wish to express, though very briefly, my opinion thereon.

(3) It was urged, on behalf of the appellants in Second Ap



















































































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