|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 119 Records
-
1970 (2) TMI 150
Issues:
1. Validity of attachment of property in execution of a money decree.
2. Interpretation of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding private transfers of attached property.
3. Compliance with Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure for effective attachment proclamation.
Issue 1: Validity of attachment of property in execution of a money decree
The case involved a dispute where a property was attached by Pillai in execution of a money decree against Sait. The High Court of Madras held that the attachment was not made according to law as per Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court had dismissed a suit against Pillai, but the High Court reversed the decree and decreed in favor of Padmavathi, who claimed to have purchased the property under a private sale. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper attachment for the validity of execution proceedings.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding private transfers of attached property
Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure declares any private transfer of attached property void against claims enforceable under the attachment. The Supreme Court clarified that for Section 64 to apply, there must be an effective attachment as per the provisions of the law. In this case, the Court found that the attachment was not effective due to non-compliance with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 54, which led to the private sale to Padmavathi being deemed valid against the claims enforceable under Pillai's attachment.
Issue 3: Compliance with Order 21, Rule 54, Code of Civil Procedure for effective attachment proclamation
Order 21, Rule 54 mandates that attachment of immovable property should be proclaimed at the property by beat of drum or other customary mode, with copies of the order affixed at various locations. The High Court found that there was no effective attachment as required by law in this case because there was no proclamation by beat of drum and a copy of the order was not affixed in the office of the Municipality. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements for attachment validity.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the private transfer of the property to Padmavathi was valid due to the lack of effective attachment by Pillai. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural adherence in execution proceedings and the consequences of non-compliance with statutory requirements on the validity of property attachments and transfers.
-
1970 (2) TMI 149
Issues:
Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the books of account solely based on a low percentage of profit when the accounts were otherwise deemed to have no defects.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the account books of a dealer were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax primarily due to a low margin of profit shown in the books, despite the accounts having no other defects. The Sales Tax Tribunal upheld this rejection based on the profit margin being less than 2 percent, deeming the account books as not genuine. The dealer contended that this decision was contrary to law, arguing that low profits alone cannot be a valid ground to declare the account books as not genuine.
The High Court, in its analysis, criticized the Tribunal's decision, stating that the margin of profit alone cannot be a conclusive factor in determining the authenticity of account books. The Court emphasized that various factors could influence profit margins, such as market competition or strategic business decisions. Referring to a previous decision, the Court highlighted that low profits should serve as a warning to tax authorities to scrutinize the accounts more thoroughly rather than a reason to outright reject them.
Furthermore, the Court referenced a Supreme Court case to underscore that while tax avoidance through legal means is permissible, the mere accrual of low profits does not automatically render account books as improperly maintained. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the books of account solely based on the low profit margin shown, emphasizing that the taxing authority must provide valid reasons for such a declaration.
In the final ruling, the Court answered the referred question in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal's decision to reject the account books was unjustified. The Court ordered no costs, and the reference fee deposited was to be refunded to the petitioner. Judge Sachidananda Acharya concurred with the decision, indicating unanimous agreement on the matter.
-
1970 (2) TMI 148
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of seniority for officiating clerks Grade I promoted from Grade II.
2. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment.
3. Classification of direct recruits and promotees for promotion purposes.
4. Application of Indian Railways Establishment Manual provisions regarding promotion and seniority.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Seniority for Officiating Clerks Grade I Promoted from Grade II:
The petitioners, officiating clerks Grade I in the Northern Railway, argued that their seniority should be determined from the date of their appointment as officiating clerks Grade I, not based on their position in the gradation list of Clerks Grade II. They contended that they were appointed as officiating clerks Grade I after passing the Appendix 2 examination, long before certain respondents, but these respondents were shown as senior due to their seniority in Grade II. The court noted that para 49 of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual does not confer a right to immediate promotion upon passing the Appendix 2 examination; it merely makes them eligible for consideration based on seniority-cum-suitability. The promotion process treats all qualified candidates at par, irrespective of when they qualified.
2. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The petitioners claimed that the determination of seniority violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. The court emphasized that the equality of opportunity in services includes all stages from initial appointment to termination, including promotion. However, it does not prohibit reasonable rules for selection and promotion applicable to all members of the classified group. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational connection to the objective sought. The court found that the classification of direct recruits and promotees was based on intelligible differentia aimed at achieving efficiency in the Accounts Department.
3. Classification of Direct Recruits and Promotees for Promotion Purposes:
The petitioners argued that both direct recruits and promotees had to pass the Appendix 2 examination, but their seniority was determined differently. The court observed that direct recruits and promotees constitute different classes, and this classification is sustainable on intelligible differentia related to efficiency. Promotion to Grade I is guided by seniority-cum-merit, and the classification does not violate Articles 14 and 16. The court held that the provisions placing all qualified Grade II clerks in one group for promotion purposes are not arbitrary or unreasonable and apply uniformly to all eligible members.
4. Application of Indian Railways Establishment Manual Provisions:
The court examined the relevant provisions in the Indian Railways Establishment Manual, including paras 48, 49, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20(b), and 21. Para 49 makes Grade II clerks eligible for promotion to Grade I upon passing the Appendix 2 examination, with promotion based on seniority-cum-suitability. Para 17 states that seniority for non-selection posts is determined by substantive or basic seniority. Para 20(b) specifies that seniority of Accounts Clerks Grade I and Stock Verifiers is determined by their substantive seniority in Grade II, regardless of when they qualify for promotion. The court found that these provisions do not confer any preferential claim to promotion based on the timing of qualification and do not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish discrimination or any violation of their rights under Articles 14 and 16. The classification of direct recruits and promotees is justified by the objective of maintaining efficiency in the Accounts Department. The petition was dismissed without costs.
-
1970 (2) TMI 147
Issues Involved:
1. Remand beyond 15 days without a charge-sheet.
2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 173, and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of Magistrates in remand cases.
4. Precedents and conflicting judgments from various High Courts.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Remand Beyond 15 Days Without a Charge-Sheet:
The core issue was whether an accused could be remanded to custody for more than 15 days without a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners argued that without a charge-sheet, the accused must be released on bail after 15 days. The state contended that under Section 344 of the Code, the court could remand the accused beyond 15 days even without a charge-sheet.
2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 173, and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
- Section 167: Limits police custody to 15 days in total unless extended by a Magistrate. The Magistrate must record reasons for any extension and cannot be a third-class Magistrate or a second-class Magistrate without special empowerment.
- Section 173: Mandates that investigations be completed without unnecessary delay, requiring the police to forward a report to the Magistrate upon completion.
- Section 344: Allows for the postponement or adjournment of proceedings and remand of the accused if necessary, even before the commencement of an inquiry or trial. The term of remand cannot exceed 15 days at a time, and reasons must be recorded in writing.
The court found that Section 344 could be invoked to extend custody beyond 15 days without a charge-sheet, provided there are sufficient grounds and the Magistrate records reasons for the remand.
3. Jurisdiction and Authority of Magistrates in Remand Cases:
The court clarified that a Magistrate need not have jurisdiction to try the case to authorize detention under Section 167. However, for remand under Section 344, the Magistrate must have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The court emphasized that remand should not be granted as a matter of course but must be justified with recorded reasons.
4. Precedents and Conflicting Judgments from Various High Courts:
The court reviewed several precedents:
- Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. Of West Bengal v. Bidhindra Kumar Roy: Held that further remand could be granted before the submission of a charge-sheet.
- Dukhi v. State: Supported the view that a Magistrate could use Section 344 without taking cognizance of the offence, even if the matter was still under investigation.
- Shrilal Nandram v. R. R. Agrawal: Affirmed that Section 344 remand is not contingent on the submission of a charge-sheet.
- Artatran Mahasuara v. State of Orissa: Contrarily held that Section 344 applies only after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.
- Tara Singh v. State: Discussed the nature of an incomplete charge-sheet but was not directly relevant to the issue of remand.
The court disagreed with the view that cognizance must be taken before remand under Section 344 and found no statutory requirement for a charge-sheet before extending custody.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that an accused could be remanded to custody beyond 15 days without a charge-sheet under Section 344, provided the Magistrate records sufficient reasons. The court confirmed the interim bail order for the petitioners and directed that they remain on bail during the pendency of the case. The judgment harmonized the interpretation of Sections 167, 173, and 344, emphasizing the balance between individual liberty and the needs of the investigation.
-
1970 (2) TMI 146
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constitutes an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 constitutes an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act:
The Tribunal concluded that the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not constitute an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that compensation is only payable to the intermediary whose right has been acquired by the Government under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The Compensation Officer is required to prepare the Compensation Assessment Roll within 8 years from the date of vesting, specifying the amount of compensation payable. Since no Compensation Roll had been prepared by the Compensation Officer under Section 14(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, the Tribunal held that there was no right in the assessee to any compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the provision for interest under Section 23(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act merely related to the fixation of the claim of the interest payable on the compensation and did not speak of the accrual of the right to receive compensation. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had no right to demand payment of compensation before the final publication of the Compensation Assessment Roll.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the Compensation Assessment Roll had not been prepared and finally published under Section 21 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. Therefore, the assessee had no actionable claim assessable to wealth tax. The Tribunal also repelled the argument made on behalf of the Revenue that the provision for interest suggests a different conclusion. The Tribunal held that the provision for interest merely related to the fixation of the claim of the interest payable on the compensation and did not speak of the accrual of the right to receive compensation. The Tribunal's final conclusion was that the assessee had no right on the valuation date to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate.
Additional Considerations:
The judgment also discussed the implications of various case laws cited by the Revenue, distinguishing them on the grounds that they were based on different statutes which were not in pari materia with the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. The judgment emphasized that the right to compensation must be a legal right, not inchoate, vague, indeterminate, problematical, contingent, and a mere possibility or expectancy. The judgment further highlighted that the compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act is based on the agricultural income and agricultural Income Tax deductions, and the right to compensation does not arise until the final publication of the Compensation Assessment Roll.
The judgment concluded that the alleged right to compensation is not an asset within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment also addressed the valuation of such wealth, noting the disparity in the valuation of the alleged right to compensation by different authorities, and concluded that the right to compensation is not a kind of property or asset contemplated to be taxed under the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment emphasized that the compensation, when paid, becomes an asset and attracts wealth tax, but the inchoate right to compensation in the present case does not constitute an asset under the Wealth Tax Act.
Final Conclusion:
The judgment answered the question raised in the statement of the case in the affirmative in favor of the assessee and held that the right to compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not constitute an asset within the meaning of the Wealth Tax Act. The judgment also concluded that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal.
-
1970 (2) TMI 145
Issues:
1. Validity of pre-emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949.
2. Bona fide requirement of the disputed land by the pre-emptors.
3. Recognized purposes under the Act and possession of contiguous land by pre-emptors.
4. Limitation period for filing pre-emption application.
5. Entitlement to compensation for improvements made in the disputed land.
Analysis:
1. The Rule challenged a pre-emption order under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The trial court allowed pre-emption subject to compensation for improvements made by the petitioner. The lower appellate court upheld the pre-emption order and dismissed the compensation claim. The petitioner contended the vires of Section 24, citing Article 19(1)(f) violation, but the court relied on a Supreme Court decision and rejected the argument, leading to the dismissal of this submission.
2. The petitioner questioned the pre-emptors' bona fide requirement for the land, arguing a lack of means for the intended purpose. However, as there was no clear finding against the pre-emptors on this issue and the petitioner raised this objection belatedly, the court refused to entertain this contention, ultimately overruling this submission.
3. Other objections included the purpose of pre-emption not aligning with recognized purposes under the Act and the pre-emptors' alleged lack of khas possession of contiguous land. The court found the purpose fell under the residuary clause of "other purposes" and accepted the pre-emptors' occupation of contiguous plots based on factual findings from the lower courts.
4. The petitioner raised a limitation point regarding the delay in filing the pre-emption application despite having knowledge of the transfer. The court referred to a Special Bench decision, Asmat Ali v. Mujahar Ali, to reject this argument, thereby deciding this issue against the petitioner.
5. Lastly, the petitioner sought compensation for improvements in the disputed land. While the lower appellate court denied compensation, the High Court concurred with this decision, emphasizing that the petitioner made improvements at his own risk, and the statute did not provide for compensation in such cases. The court held that equitable considerations did not warrant compensation, leading to the dismissal of this claim and the overall failure of the Rule.
-
1970 (2) TMI 144
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302, I.P.C.
2. Separate trials for related incidents.
3. Plea of self-defence.
4. Principle of issue-estoppel.
5. Applicability of Sections 233, 234, 235, 236, and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Use of First Information Report (FIR) as evidence.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 302, I.P.C.:
The appellant, Chandra Bhal, was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Lauwa. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on appeal by special leave, focusing on whether the conviction was justified considering the circumstances and evidence presented.
2. Separate Trials for Related Incidents:
The appellant argued that separate trials for incidents occurring in the same transaction prejudiced his defense. The FIR lodged by Vishwa Nath suggested a continuous transaction involving multiple incidents. However, the prosecution decided on separate trials, believing the offences were not committed in the course of the same transaction. The trial court, on November 9, 1964, agreed to split the cases into three separate trials: one for Vishwa Nath's injury, one for Lauwa's murder, and one for the attempted murder of others.
3. Plea of Self-Defence:
The appellant's counsel contended that the appellant's acquittal in other cases on the plea of self-defence should conclusively prove his self-defence plea in the present case. However, the Supreme Court noted that no serious attempt was made to sustain the plea of private defence based on the existing record. The right of private defence in the other cases was deemed unrelated to the right of private defence in Lauwa's shooting, as the incidents were separate in time and place.
4. Principle of Issue-Estoppel:
The appellant invoked the principle of issue-estoppel, arguing that his acquittal in other cases should preclude the prosecution from contesting his self-defence plea in the present case. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, including Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, which established that a verdict of acquittal is binding in subsequent proceedings. However, the Court found that the principle did not apply here, as the incidents were distinct and the acquittal in other cases did not preclude the trial for Lauwa's murder.
5. Applicability of Sections 233, 234, 235, 236, and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 233 mandates separate charges for distinct offences, with exceptions in Sections 234, 235, 236, and 239 allowing joint trials under certain conditions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the joinder of charges is at the court's discretion, aiming to avoid embarrassment to the defence. The Court found no legal objection to the separate trials, as the offences were distinct and not part of the same transaction.
6. Use of First Information Report (FIR) as Evidence:
The FIR, lodged by Vishwa Nath, was considered important but not conclusive. The Supreme Court noted that the FIR is not substantive evidence but can corroborate or contradict its maker. The FIR's contents alone could not determine whether there should be one or several trials. The decision to hold separate trials was based on the investigation's outcome and the Code of Criminal Procedure's provisions.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding separate trials, self-defence, or issue-estoppel. The separate trial for Lauwa's murder was deemed lawful, and the appellant's conviction was not prejudiced by the trial's conduct. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 143
Issues:
1. Validity of the arbitration award set aside by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Allegations of misconduct by the arbitrator.
3. Exceeding jurisdiction by the arbitrator in making the award.
4. Bar of limitation to the claim of the appellants.
Analysis:
1. The Union of India challenged an arbitration award related to a construction contract. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the award citing violation of natural justice, exceeding jurisdiction, and limitation bar. The High Court concurred on the natural justice violation but did not address the jurisdiction or limitation issues.
2. The Supreme Court found the Deputy Commissioner's judgment unsound. The arbitrator had given ample time for submissions and did not act unjustly. Misconduct allegations were unfounded, as the arbitrator followed fair practices. The High Court erred in dismissing the misconduct claim as a factual issue, as the reasons cited were irrelevant.
3. The High Court failed to rule on the jurisdictional aspect of the arbitrator's award. The appellants' claim included various amounts, with one component deemed unjustifiable. However, the arbitrator's decision was within the contract's arbitration scope, allowing for interest claims, making the award valid.
4. The High Court overlooked the limitation defense raised by the Union. The Arbitration Act's limitation provisions were deemed applicable, and the claim was found not time-barred. The Court noted the lack of objections earlier in the process and upheld the claim's validity. The appeal was allowed, with costs awarded to the appellants.
-
1970 (2) TMI 142
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal by the State.
2. Bona fide mistake in filing the appeal in the wrong court.
3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to appeals.
4. Validity of the District Court's order granting one month for re-presentation.
5. Sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
6. Impact of legal advice on condonation of delay.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal by the State:
The main issue in this case was whether the delay in filing an appeal by the State against an award by the Sub Court for enhanced compensation in a land acquisition proceeding should be condoned. The State sought condonation for the delay, arguing that it was due to a bona fide mistake in filing the appeal in the wrong court initially.
2. Bona Fide Mistake in Filing the Appeal in the Wrong Court:
The State initially filed the appeal in the District Court at Mavelikara instead of the High Court due to a misapprehension about the correct forum. The appeal was later returned by the District Court for re-presentation to the High Court. The State argued that this mistake was made based on the bona fide legal advice of the District Government Pleader, Alleppey. The court held that the initial institution of the appeal in the wrong court was a bona fide act, acknowledging the legal ambiguity that prevailed regarding the appellate forum.
3. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to Appeals:
The petitioner initially argued for the exclusion of the period during which the appeal was pending before the District Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. However, it was established that Section 14 does not apply to appeals. The court had to consider the case based on Section 5 of the Limitation Act only.
4. Validity of the District Court's Order Granting One Month for Re-presentation:
The District Court had granted one month for the re-presentation of the appeal to the High Court. The respondent contended that this period of grace was without jurisdiction and could not be considered valid. The court agreed that the District Court's order was void, as it had no jurisdiction to grant such an extension. However, it was also noted that the State acted on this order in good faith, assuming it to be valid.
5. Sufficient Cause Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The court had to determine whether the circumstances constituted "sufficient cause" for the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that every day's delay must be explained and noted that the State had relied on the legal advice given by its counsel. The court took a practical view, recognizing that government processes are often slow and that the State had acted without negligence or mala fides. The court held that the delay in filing the appeal within the time permitted by the District Court's order should be condoned.
6. Impact of Legal Advice on Condonation of Delay:
The court considered whether erroneous legal advice could be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. It was acknowledged that legal advice might sometimes be wrong, and lay litigants are entitled to rely on expert counsel. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling stating that mistakes of counsel could be taken into account if there was no mala fide motive. The court concluded that the State had not acted improperly in relying on its legal advisers and that this reliance constituted sufficient cause for the delay.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition for condonation of the delay, recognizing that the State had acted in good faith based on legal advice and the District Court's order. However, the court directed the State to pay the respondent costs of Rs. 50/- for the marginal negligence in the conduct of its proceedings. The judgment highlights the importance of considering practical realities and the bona fide actions of litigants when applying the provisions of the Limitation Act.
-
1970 (2) TMI 141
Issues:
1. Validity of the executive order preventing dealers from carrying on business in sugar.
2. Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963.
3. Impact of the state of emergency declared by the President in 1962 on fundamental rights.
4. Application of Article 301 of the Constitution regarding freedom of trade and commerce.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the validity of an executive order issued by the State Government preventing dealers from carrying on their sugar distribution business. The High Court declared the order null and void as it contravened the statutory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963. The State Government's action was deemed unauthorized and discriminatory, leading to the cancellation of dealers' licenses without due process, thus violating their rights under the Constitution.
2. The Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, mandated licensing for sugar dealers, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963, defined recognized dealers and imposed restrictions on sugar distribution. The State Government's allocation of sugar quotas to a cooperative store, bypassing licensed dealers, was found to be against the established statutory framework. The judgment emphasized that executive orders cannot override statutory provisions, and the rights of dealers under the licensing and control orders must be respected.
3. The judgment addressed the impact of the state of emergency declared in 1962 on fundamental rights, specifically regarding the right to move courts for enforcement. While the emergency empowered the State to enact laws or take executive actions that could restrict certain rights, the executive order in question was not protected under the emergency provisions. The court clarified that the order was contrary to statutory provisions and did not fall under the protection of Article 358 or 359 related to emergency powers.
4. The judgment delved into the application of Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce throughout India. It highlighted that while the State Legislature could impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest, such restrictions must be enacted through legislation with the President's sanction. The court emphasized that executive actions cannot infringe upon the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301, and any restrictions must be imposed through proper legislative processes.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, protecting fundamental rights during emergencies, and ensuring that executive actions do not infringe upon constitutional guarantees of freedom of trade and commerce.
-
1970 (2) TMI 140
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Director of Food & Civil Supplies' order sanctioning the relocation of the appellants' rice mill.
2. Compliance with the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, specifically sections 5, 6, and 8.
3. Locus standi of the respondents to challenge the relocation.
4. Consideration of factors under Section 5(4) in granting permission under Section 8(3)(c).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Director's Order:
The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore, which set aside the order of the Director of Food & Civil Supplies sanctioning the relocation of the appellants' rice mill. The High Court held that the permission under Section 9(3)(c) was a condition precedent to the shifting of the rice mill's location and since the appellants did not obtain prior permission, the Director's order was ultra vires. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appellants had not commenced milling operations before obtaining sanction and thus, the respondents had no valid grievance against the granted permission.
2. Compliance with the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958:
The Act categorizes rice mills into defunct, existing, and new rice mills, each requiring different permits and licenses. The appellants' rice mill, being an existing one, required a license under Section 6 and prior permission under Section 8(3)(c) for relocation. The Supreme Court noted that the Director of Food & Civil Supplies, who had the delegated authority, had sanctioned the relocation under Section 8(3)(c). The High Court's interpretation that permission must be obtained before shifting was deemed overly restrictive by the Supreme Court, which held that the appellants complied with statutory requirements.
3. Locus Standi of Respondents:
The respondents claimed that the relocation adversely affected their business. The High Court upheld this claim, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that competition in business is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to lawful restrictions. The respondents, being competitors, had no standing to challenge the appellants' compliance with the regulatory framework, as no vested right of the respondents was infringed.
4. Consideration of Factors under Section 5(4):
The respondents argued that the authority should consider factors under Section 5(4) when granting permission under Section 8(3)(c). The Supreme Court clarified that Section 5(4) applies to the grant of permits for new or defunct rice mills, not to the relocation of existing mills. The Supreme Court found no statutory obligation for the authority to consider these factors when permitting a location change under Section 8(3)(c). The appellants had been allotted new land due to the submergence of their original site by the Sharavathi Hydro-Electric Project, and the permission was granted considering relevant circumstances.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the respondents' petition and upholding the Director of Food & Civil Supplies' order. The Court emphasized that compliance with statutory requirements was met, and the respondents had no locus standi to challenge the relocation. The judgment underscores the regulatory nature of Section 8(3)(c) and the non-applicability of Section 5(4) considerations to the relocation of existing rice mills.
-
1970 (2) TMI 139
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to open land let for constructing buildings.
2. Application of the doctrine of res judicata.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, to entertain the application for determination of standard rent.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to open land let for constructing buildings:
The appellant, under an indenture dated August 2, 1950, leased 555 sq. yards of land in village Pahadi, Taluka Borivli, from the respondent for constructing buildings for residential or business purposes. The appellant constructed buildings on the land and subsequently filed an application for determining the standard rent of the land under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, rejected the application, holding that the Act did not apply to open land let for constructing buildings. This decision was confirmed by a single judge of the Bombay High Court. However, in a subsequent case, the Bombay High Court held that whether Section 6(1) of the Act applies to any particular lease must be determined on its terms, and a building lease in respect of an open plot is not excluded from Section 6(1) solely because the land may be used for residence or educational purposes only after a structure is built thereon. Relying on this judgment, the appellant filed a fresh petition, which was again rejected by the Trial Judge.
2. Application of the Doctrine of Res Judicata:
The Trial Judge and subsequent courts held that the question of whether Section 6(1) of the Act applied to open land let for constructing buildings was res judicata, as it had been finally decided by the High Court between the same parties in the earlier proceeding for fixation of standard rent. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure enacts the general rule of res judicata, which precludes any court from trying any suit or issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, was competent to try the application and held that Section 6(1) did not apply. The High Court assumed that a decision relating to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or not to entertain a proceeding is binding and conclusive between the parties in respect of the same question in a later proceeding.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli:
The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure and cannot determine the question relating to the interpretation of an enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a court. A decision of a competent court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties, but a pure question of law unrelated to facts cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. The Court held that a previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision, and a decision on an issue of law will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties if the cause of action is the same. However, a question relating to the jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. If the court erroneously holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question does not operate as res judicata. Therefore, the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Borivli, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for determination of standard rent was erroneous.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the orders passed by the High Court and the Court of Small Causes were set aside. The proceedings were remanded to the Court of First Instance to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs throughout.
Appeals Allowed.
-
1970 (2) TMI 138
Issues:
- Determination of whether properties covered by Exh. B-6 were joint family properties available for partition in a family governed by Mitakshara law.
Analysis:
1. The central issue in this appeal was whether the properties covered by Exh. B-6 were part of the joint Hindu family's assets and thus subject to partition. The suit involved brothers in a joint family governed by Mitakshara law, with the 1st respondent seeking a share in the properties listed in the plaint-schedule. The trial Court initially granted a partition decree excluding properties covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-7 claimed as separate by the appellant.
2. The High Court, however, held that properties under Exh. B-6 were joint family properties based on an alleged admission by the appellant during the proceedings. The High Court's decision primarily hinged on the appellant's statement regarding the origin of funds for Exh. B-6, where he mentioned that the consideration was paid by his father, leading to the conclusion that it was joint family property.
3. The appellant contended that the funds for Exh. B-6 were sourced from his dowry, which he entrusted to his father for investment. The appellant's assertion was supported by his consistent claim that properties under Exhs. B-2 to B-7 were his separate acquisitions, as evidenced by his tax payments and lease deeds.
4. The Supreme Court analyzed the appellant's statements and found that while he acknowledged his father's involvement in the transaction for Exh. B-6, it was within the scope of managing his private funds. The Court emphasized that the acquisitions under Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7 were akin to that of Exh. B-6, all originating during the lifetime of the father, Reddinaidu.
5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the trial Court's decision. The Court found no substantial distinction between the properties under Exh. B-6 and those covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7, affirming them as the separate acquisitions of the appellant. No costs were awarded in the Supreme Court due to the circumstances of the case.
-
1970 (2) TMI 137
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the draft scheme of nationalization under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Validity of Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules.
3. Allocation of functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister.
4. Delegation of statutory functions by the State Government.
5. Validity of provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Draft Scheme of Nationalization under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act:
The appellants, private stage carriage operators in Tamil Nadu, challenged the draft scheme of nationalization prepared and published under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The primary contention was that the requisite opinion under Section 68(C) was not formed by the State Government but by the Secretary to the government in the Industries, Labour, and Housing Department, acting under Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules. The appellants argued that Rule 23(A) was ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the draft scheme was valid as the requisite opinion was formed in accordance with the rules.
2. Validity of Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules:
Rule 23(A) was introduced to allow the Secretary to the Government of Madras in the Industries, Labour, and Housing Department to exercise powers under Section 68(C) of the Act on behalf of the State Government. The appellants argued that the Governor exceeded his powers under Article 166(3) of the Constitution by making Rule 23(A). The Supreme Court held that the Governor, on the advice of the Council of Ministers, could make rules for the convenient transaction of business, including designating officials to discharge specific functions. Therefore, Rule 23(A) was valid.
3. Allocation of Functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister:
The appellants contended that the functions under the Motor Vehicles Act were allocated to the Home Department and not to the Transport Minister. However, the Supreme Court found that when the D.M.K. government was formed in 1967, the Home Department's subjects were distributed among various ministers, and the Transport Minister was allocated the functions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court agreed with the High Court that the functions were validly allocated to the Transport Minister.
4. Delegation of Statutory Functions by the State Government:
The appellants argued that the State Government could not delegate its statutory functions under Section 68(C) to any other authority, as it would undermine the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that under the Constitution, the Governor could make rules for the convenient transaction of business, including delegating functions to officials. The Court emphasized that civil servants act on behalf of the government and not as delegates of the ministers, and their decisions are considered decisions of the government.
5. Validity of Provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968:
The validity of some provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968 was also challenged. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to address these questions for deciding the validity of the impugned scheme. The Court left these questions open to be decided if and when action is taken based on those provisions.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the draft scheme of nationalization, Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules, and the allocation of functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister. The Court concluded that the Secretary's actions under Rule 23(A) were valid and that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility was not undermined. The questions regarding the validity of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968 were left open for future consideration. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
-
1970 (2) TMI 136
Issues:
- Interpretation of partnership deed regarding the entitlement of legal representatives to a deceased partner's share in the goodwill of a firm.
- Application of Partnership Act provisions on property rights and goodwill in the context of dissolution and continuation of a partnership after a partner's death.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of legal representatives to a deceased partner's share in the goodwill of a firm. The deceased partner's widow and son sought an account of the partnership and the amount due to the deceased partner at the time of his death. The High Court initially declared the partnership dissolved concerning the deceased partner but not the surviving partners. The High Court modified the decree, ruling that the legal representatives were entitled to interest on the deceased partner's share in the assets, excluding goodwill. The defendants contended that goodwill should not be included as it was agreed to cease upon the partner's death.
The defendants argued that the Partnership Act only allows goodwill to be considered upon general dissolution of a firm, not when a partner's representatives claim their share while the firm continues per agreement. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the Act does not extinguish a deceased partner's right in the firm's assets if the partnership continues after their death. The Court emphasized the importance of partnership agreements, stating that in the absence of clear provisions extinguishing the deceased partner's share, normal rules apply.
The Court noted that goodwill is considered an asset of a firm and should be included in the deceased partner's share unless expressly stipulated otherwise in the partnership deed. The judges rejected the argument that an agreement for the surviving partners to continue the business automatically extinguishes the deceased partner's share in goodwill. They emphasized that goodwill is an intangible asset and should be treated as part of the deceased partner's estate unless explicitly stated otherwise in the partnership agreement.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the legal representatives were entitled to a share in the goodwill of the firm unless the partnership deed explicitly stated otherwise. The judgment highlighted the significance of partnership agreements and the application of Partnership Act provisions in determining property rights and entitlements in cases of partnership continuation after a partner's death.
-
1970 (2) TMI 135
Issues:
1. Validity of the imposition and collection of coal cess by the Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara.
2. Interpretation and validity of the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam Act 18 of 1964.
3. Effect of the Act on previous judgments and legal declarations regarding the coal cess levy.
Analysis:
1. Validity of Coal Cess Imposition:
The appeals were filed by the Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara against the High Court's judgment declaring the Madhya Pradesh Coal Cess (Validation) Act 18 of 1964 ineffective in legalizing the imposition of cess at varying rates per ton under notifications issued by the Independent Mining Local Board. Previous challenges to the levy were upheld by the Supreme Court, which found the increased levy without prior sanction illegal. The High Court also ruled against the validity of the enhanced levy, leading to the enactment of Act 18 of 1964 to rectify the defects.
2. Interpretation of Act 18 of 1964:
The Madhya Pradesh Koyala Upkar (Manyatakaran) Adhiniyam Act 18 of 1964 aimed to validate the imposition and collection of coal cess by local authorities. However, the High Court judges differed in their interpretation of the Act's effectiveness. One judge found the Act ineffective in legalizing the cess imposed under previous notifications, while another judge held a contrary view. The Act was scrutinized for its drafting deficiencies and its failure to clearly amend the previous enactments under which the cess was imposed.
3. Effect on Previous Judgments:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Act could not overturn the previous judgment declaring the levy invalid due to lack of proper sanction. The Act's attempt to retroactively amend the law was deemed unconstitutional, as it sought to challenge a binding legal declaration by the Court. The Court emphasized that legislative amendments could not render a court judgment ineffective or alter the interpretation of the law as established by the Court. The judgment in the previous case was upheld as binding on all parties and courts within the territory of India.
In conclusion, the appeals challenging the validity of the coal cess imposition and the interpretation of Act 18 of 1964 were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the binding nature of its previous judgment and declared the Act's attempt to override it as unconstitutional. The legal principles of tax legislation and the limitations on legislative power to alter court judgments were underscored in this comprehensive analysis.
-
1970 (2) TMI 134
Issues:
- Dismissal of petition by High Court in limine
- Allegation of breach of agreement by Ulhasnagar Municipality
- Legal obligations of public bodies regarding representations
- Justiciability of the matter under Article 226 jurisdiction
Dismissal of Petition by High Court:
The High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Century Spinning Manufacturing Co. Ltd. seeking a writ to restrain Ulhasnagar Municipality from enforcing octroi provisions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's dismissal lacked reasons and did not consider the prima facie unjust action of the Municipality, thus directing the case to be readmitted for proper consideration.
Allegation of Breach of Agreement:
The Company alleged that Ulhasnagar Municipality breached a solemn arrangement not to levy octroi duty for seven years. The Court noted that public bodies are bound by representations and promises, and failing to honor them can lead to legal obligations. The Company's reliance on the Municipality's assurances formed the basis of its expansion and new manufacturing activities.
Legal Obligations of Public Bodies:
The judgment emphasized that public bodies are not exempt from fulfilling obligations arising from their representations, akin to private individuals. The Court cited precedents to establish that citizens altering their position based on public body representations are entitled to enforce such promises, even if not in a formal contract.
Justiciability under Article 226 Jurisdiction:
Regarding the justiciability of the matter under Article 226 jurisdiction, the Court clarified that if a party alleges unlawful, high-handed, or arbitrary actions by a public body, they are entitled to a hearing on the merits. The Court highlighted that complex factual questions do not necessarily preclude the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remanding the case for proper consideration. It extended the stay on octroi duty levy, advised early hearing, and directed the High Court to issue rule to the Municipality and the State for further proceedings. The judgment underscored the legal obligations of public bodies and the justiciability of grievances against them, ensuring citizens' rights to enforce representations made by such bodies.
-
1970 (2) TMI 132
Issues:
1. Appeal against acquittal of the accused under s. 417(3), Cr. P.C.
2. Allegation of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.
3. Legal challenge regarding acquittal of co-accused.
4. Examination of Byelaws and responsibilities of Secretary.
5. Analysis of evidence regarding embezzlement and falsification.
6. Consideration of ratification by Board of Directors.
7. Joint trial of accused and misjoinder of charges.
8. Certification for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 134(1)(c).
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against the acquittal of the accused under s. 417(3), Cr. P.C. The Judicial Commissioner allowed the appeal against one accused for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged the acquittal of co-accused, arguing that the acquittal did not negate the charges against him.
2. The appellant was accused of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts regarding funds of a cooperative society. The Judicial Commissioner found evidence of misappropriation and violation of Byelaws. The appellant's responsibility as Secretary was crucial in establishing the charges of embezzlement and falsification.
3. The legal challenge regarding the acquittal of co-accused was dismissed as the acquittal was not based on a lack of evidence for embezzlement. The appellant's role as Secretary and the evidence presented supported the charges against him, irrespective of the acquittal of others.
4. The examination of Byelaws highlighted the duties of the Secretary, emphasizing proper disbursement and accounting practices. The appellant's actions were scrutinized in light of these Byelaws to establish the breach of trust and falsification of accounts.
5. The analysis of evidence revealed discrepancies in fund disbursement, lack of authorization for transactions, and false accounting practices. The appellant was found to have benefited himself and others through dishonest practices, leading to the conviction for criminal breach of trust and falsification.
6. The consideration of ratification by the Board of Directors was rejected as there was no provision empowering the Board to validate breaches of Byelaws. The argument that ratification negated criminal charges was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach of trust.
7. The joint trial of accused persons on multiple charges was deemed lawful, with no indication of misjoinder affecting the trial. The charges under s. 408 and s. 477-A, IPC, were considered appropriate for a joint trial, with no failure of justice noted.
8. The certification for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 134(1)(c) was found to lack substantial legal questions. The Court emphasized the stringent criteria for certification and dismissed the appeal due to the absence of significant legal issues, highlighting the limited scope for appeal in criminal matters.
-
1970 (2) TMI 131
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946
2. Alleged excessive delegation of legislative power in Section 3 and 4 of the Act
3. Interconnection of Section 3 with Section 6, and the validity of Section 6
4. Validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, in relation to existing laws, particularly the Indian Railways Act
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:
The appellant argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the provisions of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The court held that the requirement of a permit to transport essential commodities was a reasonable restriction in the public interest, especially during an emergency period. The Act aimed to ensure an equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair prices, which justified the restrictions imposed. The High Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 was affirmed.
2. Alleged Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power in Section 3 and 4 of the Act:
The appellant contended that Section 3 of the Act involved excessive delegation of legislative power. The court referred to the majority judgment in the Delhi Laws Act case, which held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. However, it was determined that the legislature had laid down a clear principle for maintaining or increasing the supply of essential commodities and ensuring their equitable distribution at fair prices. The delegation of powers to the Central Government was within permissible limits and provided sufficient guidance for the exercise of those powers. Section 4, which allowed further delegation to subordinate authorities, was also upheld as it enumerated the classes of persons to whom the power could be delegated, aligning with the principles established in Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board.
3. Interconnection of Section 3 with Section 6, and the Validity of Section 6:
The High Court had declared Section 6 of the Act unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court found this to be an error. Section 6 stated that any order made under Section 3 would have effect notwithstanding any inconsistency with other enactments. The court clarified that Section 6 did not repeal or abrogate existing laws; it merely bypassed them where they were inconsistent with the orders made under Section 3. This did not amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, as the repeal by implication was a legislative act by Parliament itself, not by the delegate. Therefore, Section 6 was held to be constitutional.
4. Validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, in Relation to Existing Laws:
The appellant argued that the Control Order contravened Sections 27, 28, and 41 of the Indian Railways Act. The court found no direct conflict between the Control Order and the Railways Act. The requirement of a permit and the powers given to the Textile Commissioner did not supersede the provisions of the Railways Act but supplemented them. The Control Order aimed to regulate the transport of cotton textiles to ensure even distribution and fair pricing, which was a reasonable restriction. The court also dismissed the argument that the Textile Commissioner had unregulated and arbitrary discretion, noting that the appellants had not applied for a permit and thus could not claim arbitrary refusal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the case in accordance with the law.
-
1970 (2) TMI 130
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Ordinance under Article 123 of the Constitution.
2. Legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969.
3. Infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & (g), and 31(2) of the Constitution.
4. Violation of the guarantee of freedom of trade under Article 301.
5. Validity of the retrospective operation given to the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
I. Validity of the Ordinance under Article 123 of the Constitution
The petitioner challenged the competence of the President to promulgate the Ordinance under Article 123, arguing that the condition precedent to the exercise of this power did not exist. The Attorney-General contended that the satisfaction of the President is subjective and the Union is not obligated to disclose or justify the circumstances necessitating immediate action. The Court did not express an opinion on the extent of its jurisdiction to examine the President's satisfaction due to the invalidity of the Act for other reasons.
II. Legislative Competence of the Parliament to Enact the Act
The petitioner argued that the Parliament overstepped its legislative competence by enacting the Act, which allegedly encroached upon the State List. The Court held that the Parliament has exclusive legislative power under Entries 43, 44, and 45 of List I and Entry 42 of List III. The Court found no evidence that the named banks were carrying on non-banking business distinct from banking business. The Court concluded that the acquisition of the undertakings of the named banks did not trespass upon the State List, and the Act was within the legislative competence of the Parliament.
III. Infringement of Fundamental Rights
The petitioner claimed that the Act impaired his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) & (g), and 31(2). The Court opined that the rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) are not mutually exclusive and must be reconciled. The Court held that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on the named banks by preventing them from carrying on banking business and practically prohibiting them from carrying on non-banking business. The Act was found to violate the guarantee of compensation under Article 31(2) as it failed to provide compensation determined according to relevant principles.
IV. Violation of the Guarantee of Freedom of Trade under Article 301
The petitioner argued that the Act violated the guarantee of freedom of trade under Article 301. The Court did not deem it necessary to decide this issue due to the finding that the Act impaired the guarantee under Article 31(2).
V. Validity of the Retrospective Operation Given to the Act
The petitioner contended that the retrospective operation of the Act was invalid. The Court did not consider this argument due to the invalidity of the Act on other grounds.
Conclusion:
The Court declared the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 invalid. The Act was found to make hostile discrimination against the named banks and violate the guarantee of compensation under Article 31(2). Sections 4, 5, 6, and Schedule II of the Act were deemed void, leading to the invalidation of the entire Act. Petitions Nos. 300 and 298 of 1969 were allowed, and Petition No. 222 of 1969 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs in these petitions.
........
|
9911796707
