9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Discrimination under Article 14 and restraint of trade under Article 19(1)(g) in relation to hedge contracts in the cotton industry.
Issue 1: Discrimination under Article 14 The petitioner, a cotton association, alleged discrimination as it was prevented from operating hedge contracts while the East India Cotton Association was allowed to do so. The Court noted that the East India Cotton Association had a long history of dealing in hedge contracts, and the petitioner, although a successor to an older association, was incorporated recently. The Court emphasized the importance of experience and stability in handling hedge contracts, which significantly impact the welfare of the people and economic stability. The Court found that the petitioner's incorporation date justified caution by the Textile Commissioner, and the delay in merger with another society further supported the Commissioner's decision. The Court concluded that no discrimination existed under Article 14 due to the differences in the associations' histories and capabilities. Issue 2: Restraint of Trade under Article 19(1)(g) The petitioner contended that the Cotton Control Order of 1950, which banned certain cotton contracts and options, violated Article 19(1)(g) by restricting trade. The Court recognized cotton as an essential commodity subject to control under the Essential Supplies Act. It acknowledged the importance of hedging in cotton trading for risk mitigation and economic stability. The Court held that the restrictions imposed by the Cotton Control Order were valid under Article 19(1)(g) due to the Act's validation clause. The Court emphasized the need for proper supervision and control in dealing with essential commodities, supporting the legality of the Order's provisions. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the authorities and upholding the validity of the Cotton Control Order's restrictions on cotton contracts. The Court found no discrimination under Article 14, considering the differences in the associations' histories and the petitioner's recent incorporation. Additionally, the Court upheld the legality of the restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) due to cotton's status as an essential commodity and the need for regulation to ensure economic stability and prevent reckless speculation.
|
