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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 146

M.ANANTANARAYANAN, VEERASWAMI, RAMAKRISHNAN, P.S.KAILASAM, NATESAN
V. Pattabhiraman – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax North Madras (North West) Ayanavaram – Respondent


Advocates:
V.K. Thiruvenkatachari for A.N. Rangaswami. B.S. Satyanarayana and P.C. Kannan, for Petitioner in W. P. Nos. 2835, 2947, and 3125 of 1967, King and Partridge, for Petitioner in each of petns. in W. P. Nos. 3843, 3606, 3607, 3624, 3507, 3542 and 3543 of 1967, 3559, 3639, 3756, 3795, 4004 of 1967, 126, 127, 129, 155, 156 and 387 of 1968. V. Vedantachari for Petitioner in each of petns. in W. P. Nos. 73 to 79, 1835, 3688 of 1967, 102, 67 and 138 of 1968, 2598 and 2599 of 1967, 40 to 43 of 1968 and 1133 of 1967, and The Advocate
General for the Govt. Pleader on behalf of the Govt. in W. P. Nos. 2835 and 73 of 1967. T Changalvorayan, for Respondents in W. P. Nos. 2835 of 1967 and 3651 of 1967. V. Balasubramaniam, for Respondent in W. P. Nos. 3651 of 1967, 3795, 4004 of 1967 and in W. P. Nos. 155 and 156 of 1968 and also as amicus curiae.

Judgement

ANANTANARAYANAN, C.J. :- The Madras Urban Land Tax Act 12 of 1966, received the assent of the President on the 9th of September, 1966; by virtue of Sec. 1, sub-section (2) (a) (i), most of the provisions of this Act, with three stated exceptions, are deemed to have come into force in the City of Madras, on the first of July, 1963. In the proceedings before us, the vires of this measure has been challenged, upon grounds of the absence of legislative competence and attack under the combined effect of Articles 14 and 19 (1) of the Constitution of India; admittedly, grounds of great significance and interest. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co.. Ltd. v. State of Madras, (1966) 2 Mad LJ 172 the Division Bench of Veeraswami and Natesan, JJ., dealt with a predecessor enactment, namely, Madras Urban Land Tax Act XXXIV of 1963, and while upholding the measure in terms of legislative competence, struck down the charging section (Section 3) as violative of Article 14, and in consequence, held that the entire Act was void and unenforceable. Upon the present measure, arguments have been submitted before us, at considerable length, and covering a wide range of precedents and authorities. 2-3
























































































































































































































































































































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