Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Invalidates Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1955 - Writ of Mandamus Issued</h1> <h3>KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI @ MOOPIL NAYAR Versus STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA</h3> KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI @ MOOPIL NAYAR Versus STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA - 1960 AIR 1080, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 316 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955.2. Whether the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.4. Whether the Act violates Article 31(1) of the Constitution.5. Whether the Act is saved by Article 31A of the Constitution.6. Whether the Act constitutes an exercise of judicial power by the legislature.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955:The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955, which declares certain sthanams to be Marumakkathayam tarwads and their properties to be tarwad properties. The Act was enacted to resolve doubts about the true legal character of certain properties erroneously claimed to be sthanam properties.2. Violation of Article 14:The petitioner argued that the Act is discriminatory as it applies only to specific sthanams and not to others, thereby violating Article 14. The Court did not find merit in this argument as it was not substantiated by sufficient facts.3. Violation of Article 19(1)(f):The petitioner contended that the Act deprives him of his fundamental right to hold and dispose of property, violating Article 19(1)(f). The Court examined whether the Act imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public as per Article 19(5). The Court found that the Act arbitrarily deprived the petitioner of his property without any reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved, thus violating Article 19(1)(f).4. Violation of Article 31(1):The petitioner argued that the Act deprives him of his property without authority of law, violating Article 31(1). The Court held that any law depriving a person of his property must comply with the provisions of Article 19(5) and found that the Act did not meet this requirement.5. Saved by Article 31A:The respondents contended that the Act is protected by Article 31A, which allows laws for the acquisition, extinguishment, or modification of rights in estates to be valid notwithstanding any inconsistency with Articles 14, 19, and 31. The Court examined whether the sthanam properties were held in janmam rights, which are considered estates under Article 31A. The Court found that the Act did not effectuate any agrarian reform and was not concerned with land tenure, thus not being protected by Article 31A.6. Exercise of Judicial Power by the Legislature:The petitioner argued that the Act constituted an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, which it does not possess. The Court held that the legislature has the power to enact laws with retrospective effect and to set aside judicial decisions, provided it does not adjudicate disputes between parties. The Act was found to be a legislative act and not a judicial one.Conclusion:The Supreme Court declared the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955, to be void and ultra vires the Constitution. The Court issued a writ of mandamus restraining the State of Kerala from enforcing the provisions of the Act against the petitioner and his sthanams. Petition No. 443 of 1955 was allowed with costs, Petition No. 40 of 1956 was allowed without costs, and Petition No. 41 of 1956 was dismissed without costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found