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

1966 Supreme(Mad) 97

K.VEERASWAMI, M.NATESAN
The Buckingham & Carnatic Company Ltd. , – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madras represented by Secretary, Revenue Department Fort St. George, Madras-9 – Respondent


Advocates:
V. K. Thiruvenkatachari for King & Partidge, A. R. Ramanathan, V. Vedantachari, V. Suresham, R. S. Venkatachari, R. Mohan, S. Narayanaswami, C. S. Prakasa Rao, S. K. L. Ratan, V. Thyagarajan, U. Somasundaram, P. Balasubramaniam, V. Janakiraman, P. C. Sarangapani, K. Kumaraswami, P. Venkataswamy, P. Kannan, A. Sundaresan, G. K. Damodara Rao, G. Ramanujam, T. V. Srinivasachari, M. Ramachandran, C. Vasudevan, K. Radhakrishnan, V. Shanmugham, K. V. Narasimha Rao, M. A. Shatala,S. V. K. S. Rangaswamy Ayyangar, K. Kumaraswami, N .Venkatarama Iyer, E. R. Krishnan,. K. E. Rajagopalachari, K. Shanmugham, T. Aravamudhan Ayyangar, G. Narayanan,. A. Doraiswami Iyengar, N.Arumuchalam, S. Nainarsundaram, P. V. Subramaniam, P. K. Janakiraman, N. Sivamani, R. G. Rajan, K. Hariharan, M. A. Rajagopalan, N. M. Manivarma, C. Sudarsana, K. Ramaswamy, A. Dorainathan, Habibullah Badsha, V. Narayanaswamy, T. T. Srinivasan, M. M. Ismail, Padmanabhan, P. B. Krishnamurthy, T. Sathiadev, T. R. Thyagarajan, T. S. Rangarajan, N. Appu Rao, N. C. Raghavachari, K. S. Naidu, P. S. Raman, K. K. Venugopal, R. Parthasarathy, T. Raghavan, T. R.
Srinivasa Iyengar, V. Seshadri, P. R. Gokulakrishnan, T. N. C. Srinivasavaradhacharia, M. A. Sadanand, K. Narayanaswami Mudaliar, T. Chengalvorayan, K. Parasaran, T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, M. P. Subbhayya, R. Narayanan, and C. P. Rajagopala Ayyangar, for Petitioners.
The Advocate-General N. Krishnaswami Reddy and K. Venkataswami, for Additional Government Pleader on behalf of State.

Veeraswami, J.-

The petitioners, who are affected by the provisions of the Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXXIV of 1963), assail its validity on grounds of legislative incompetency to enact it and of violation of constitutional limitations. The petitions are by different owners of urban lands in the City of Madras to quash the notification either under section 9 or under section 16(3) of the Act, in so far as they relate to the petitioners, or the levy and demand of tax on some of them under its provisions. To deal with the legal contentions, it will suffice to mention the facts in one or two petitions, as the facts in almost all the petitions are related and of more or less similar pattern, except as to particular owners, the locality of the lands in different zones and sub-zones and their character and market value. If it is necessary, reference will be made to other specific facts in disposing of the prayer for quashing of the urban land tax and Settlement Schmes prepared and published under the Act.

In W. P. No. 1614 of 1964, the petitioner is the owner of property in R. S. No. 1693/1, Mylapore, its area being 4 cawnies 1 ground and 1595 square feet. The building on












































































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