9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legal effect of parallel provisions on the control over the sale price of scrap in the Part B State of Madhya Bharat. 2. Liability of the appellant as the President of the Scrap Dealers Association for sales exceeding the authorized maximum price. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legal Effect of Parallel Provisions on the Sale Price of Scrap in Madhya Bharat: The appellant was convicted for contravening the Indian Iron & Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 by selling scrap iron at prices higher than authorized. The defense argued that parallel provisions in Madhya Bharat allowed such sales. The history of legislation on controlling scrap prices began with the Defence of India Act, 1939, which empowered the Central Government to control prices via the Defence of India Rules. The Indian Scrap Order, 1943, was promulgated under this authority and was meant to lapse six months after the emergency ended, but was continued by the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. The Madhya Bharat Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1948, and subsequently the Madhya Bharat Act III of 1948, contained similar provisions for controlling scrap prices. The Director of Civil Supplies, Madhya Bharat, issued a notification on June 4, 1949, aligning local prices with those fixed under the Indian Scrap Order, 1943. However, a special notification on August 26, 1949, allowed the Scrap Dealers Association to sell at higher prices. The Indian Scrap Order was extended to Madhya Bharat on September 12, 1950, which effectively replaced the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order. The appellant argued that the special notification allowing higher prices continued in force due to the proviso in Section 17(4) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. However, the Court held that the extension of the Indian Scrap Order repealed the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order and any subordinate legislation under it, including the special notification. The Court emphasized that the two Orders had significant differences and could not operate simultaneously. The extension of the Indian Scrap Order to Madhya Bharat without a saving clause for the special notification meant that the latter was repealed. The Court also rejected the argument based on Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, which was inapplicable in this context. 2. Liability of the Appellant as the President of the Scrap Dealers Association: The second issue was whether the appellant, as the President of an unincorporated Scrap Dealers Association, could be held liable for sales exceeding the authorized maximum price. The defense argued that the Association, being unincorporated, was merely an aggregate of its members, each of whom could sell at higher prices individually. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Association, as an unincorporated body, was a "person" under the General Clauses Act and was subjected to control as a single entity. The Association was given the facility of obtaining scrap at favorable prices and was required to sell at prices specified in column II of the schedule. The appellant's liability was further established under Section 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, which deems any person who abets the contravention of an order to have contravened that order. The Court found that the sales by the Association at prices fixed by it were in excess of the authorized prices, and the appellant, as President, was liable for these sales. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for contravening the Indian Iron & Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943, by selling scrap iron at unauthorized prices. The Court held that the extension of the Indian Scrap Order to Madhya Bharat repealed the Madhya Bharat Scrap Order and any special notifications under it. The appellant, as President of the Scrap Dealers Association, was liable for the sales exceeding the authorized maximum price.
|
