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

1955 Supreme(Raj) 115

WANCHOO, DAVE, MODI
Girjashanker – Appellant
Versus
Lalu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.T. Porwal, for Girjashanker; Sohannath, for Lalu; L.N. Chhangani, Government Advocate

Wanchoo, C.J.—This case has come before this Full Bench because Mr. Justice Bapna had some doubt about the validity of the extension of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949, which was made by a notification on the 20th of June, 1953. As the matter was of considerable importance, he referred the case to a Division Bench. Thereupon, a Full Bench was ordered to be constituted in view of the importance of the point involved. Before, however, a Full Bench could meet an Ordinance No. III of 1954 was promulgated on the 15th of February, 1954., making certain amendments in Ordinance No. IX of 1949. Then Ordinance No III of 1954, was replaced by the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act (No X) of 1954. The question of validity therefore of the extension made in June 1953 by a notification has to be considered keeping in view there two enact-ments of 1954.

2. The position would be clearer if we give a brief history of this legislation namely the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949. It was passed and promulgated on the 21st of June, 1949, and sec. 1, sub-sec. (3) stated that it would come into force at once, and remain in force for












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