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

1970 Supreme(Cal) 98

P.B.MUKHARJI, T.K.BASU
SAMARENDRA KUMAR DAS – Appellant
Versus
KHALILUR RAHAMAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Jnan Ranjan Ganguly, K.P.SINHA, M.K.Palit, R.K.De, S.C.BOSE, SATYENDRA PROSAD SEN

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THESE are six applications made under Article 228 of the Constitution. They raise the question of the vires of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by Section 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Act XXXIV of 1969 ).

( 2 ) THE two points raised in these applications relate to substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution viz. , (1) Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Ad XXXIV of 1969) is discriminatory and as such ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and (2) that Section 13 of the said Amending Act imposes unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners' fundamental rights to acquire, hold and. dispose of property guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, and as such void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. These two points are undoubtedly substantial questions of flaw as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 228 of the Constitution reads as follows: If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the Interpretation of











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