Judgment

Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I.: I have fully discussed and explained the meaning and effect of Articles 19 and 31 in my judgment just delivered in --- State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose , AIR 1954 SC 92 (A). On that view I agree with my learned brothers that the impugned Ordinance authorises, in effect a deprivation of the property of the Company within the meaning of Article 31 without compensation and is not covered by the exception in Clause (5) (b) (ii) of that article. The Ordinance thus violates the fundamental right of the Company under Article 31 (2), and the appellant as a preference share-holder who is now called upon to pay the moneys unpaid on his shares is entitled to impugn the constitutionality of the Ordinance. I also agree with my learned brother Mahajan that the previous decision of this Court in --- Charanjit Lal v. Union of India , AIR 1951 SC 41 (B) is distinguishable and has no application here for the reasons mentioned by him.

MAHAJAN, J. :

2. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed on the 29th day of August 1950 in Appeal No. 48 of 1950.

3. The appeal concerns the validity of the same piece of