Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.38 seconds)

S.Gunasekaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 14 June, 2011

9. As regards the contention of the appellant that the benefit of no limitation prescribed by the State Law cannot be curtailed by the Central Law, the Writ Court has considered the decision of this Court relied upon by the appellant in S.Gunasekaran and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.Nos.1949 and 7558 of 2010 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177, referred to in S.Gunasekaran's case.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 31 - K Chandru - Full Document

T. Barai vs Henry Ah Hoe And Another on 7 December, 1982

The proviso to Article 254(2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law even though it has become valid by virtue of the Presidents assent. Parliament may repeal or amend the repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter. Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws. Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand together, e.g., where both prescribe punishment for the same offence but the punishment differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed. In all such cases, the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law under Article 254(1)......" (Emphasis added). It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any assistance to the respondent State when there is no repugnancy shown and that the two laws can possibly stand together. Further, the case referred to related to imposition of penal provisions and therefore, invocation of Article 21 arose in that case.” Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 272 - A P Sen - Full Document
1