TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Madras Estates Act upheld, lease termination valid. Legislative competence and notice requirements dismissed.</h1> The court upheld the validity of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and the termination of the lease by the State of ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative competence of the Madras Legislature regarding fisheries in the seas.2. Legislative competence concerning interstate trade and commerce.3. Validity of the termination of the lease without three months' notice as required by Section 20 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence of the Madras Legislature Regarding Fisheries in the Seas:The petitioners argued that the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, was beyond the legislative competence of the Madras Legislature as it related to fisheries in the seas, which are outside the territory of the State. The court examined the history and nature of the chank fisheries off the coast of Ramanathapuram and concluded that the Act was in substance a legislation in respect of land and land tenures, which is within the jurisdiction of the State. The court cited various precedents to support the principle that legislation within the legislative competence of a State is valid even if it incidentally affects subjects beyond its jurisdiction. The court held that the right to the fishery in the seas was incidental to the effective legislation on land tenures and, therefore, within the legislative competence of the Madras Legislature.2. Legislative Competence Concerning Interstate Trade and Commerce:The petitioners contended that the Act was a legislation on interstate trade and commerce, which is exclusively within the competence of the Union under Entry 42 of the Union List. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the Act was passed when the Government of India Act, 1935, was in force, which did not have a corresponding entry. Furthermore, the notice dated 13-3-1951 was not a law as defined in Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution. The court held that the Act was not a legislation on interstate commerce but on fisheries, which is within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry 21 of the State List.3. Validity of the Termination of the Lease Without Three Months' Notice:The petitioners argued that the termination of the lease on 13-3-1951 was invalid as it did not provide the three months' notice required by Section 20 of the Act. The court examined the provisions of Section 20 and its provisos. It concluded that the lease, created on 1-7-1946 for a period of ten years, fell within the purview of the second proviso, which states that rights created after 1-7-1945 for a period exceeding one year are not enforceable against the Government. The court held that the notice dated 13-3-1951 was valid under the second proviso and did not require three months' notice.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, and the termination of the lease by the State of Madras. The court awarded costs to the first respondent, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 250.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
