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

1979 Supreme(Guj) 184

M.P.THAKKAR, R.C.MANKAD, V.V.BEDARKAR
MALEK DOSUMIYA JAMIYATMIYA (HEIRS OF DECD. GULAMRASOOL SARFUDDIN MAL – Appellant
Versus
PATHAN RASULKHAN MOHMEDKHAN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.N.SHAH, G.P.Vyas, K.N.VALIKARIMVALA

M. P. THAKKAR, J.

( 1 ) A very serious problem which can make an atheist turn to God in desperation and demands immediate attention has crossed our path in the course of our search for a solution to the question of law which has been referred to this Full Bench viz. whether in order to avail of the right conferred by sec. 4 of the Partition Act of 1893 it is an essential pre-condition that the claimant must be arraigned as plaintiff and not as a defendant. The problem highlighted is whether the concept of National Integrity notwithstanding and the Constitutional command of equality before law notwithstanding can the right conferred on a citizen by the very same provision of an All-India enactment be availed of only provided he is on the Indian soil at Calcutta but not if he is on the Indian soil at Bombay ? Call the meaning and content of an All-India statute depend on whether it is being interpreted in one State of India or in another ? Can the conscience of India countenance a situation where law means one thing in Bombay and just the contrary in Calcutta ? We will be utterly failing in our duty if we did not underscore the compulsion to remedy this situation which has been tolera











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