SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th December, 1959
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K SUBBA RAO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
1. Union of India and others, Appellants (In Cri. As. Nos. 36 and 37 of 1955) and 2. State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration) and others. (In Cri. A. No. 38 of 1955)
Versus
M/s. Bhanamal Gulzarimal Ltd., and others. Respondents.
Criminal appeals Nos. 36 to 38 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Appellants; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. A. N. Sinha and N. H. Hingorani, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : These three appeals which have been filed in this Court with certificates issued by the Punjab High Court under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution are directed against the orders passed by the said High Court by which cl. 11B of Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 (hereinafter called the Order) has been declared unconstitutional and inoperative, and the criminal proceedings commenced against M/s. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal and others under the said clause 11B read with S.7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946) (hereinafter called the Act) have been quashed. M/s. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal Ltd., is a private limited company having its registered office at Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Since 1948 it has been registered as a stockholder by the Iron and Steel Controller (hereinafter called the Controller) under cl. 2(d) of the Order. It appears that under cl. 11B of the Order notifications had been issued from time to time giving a schedule of base prices in respect of iron and steel. On December 10, 1949, the Controller issued a notification under cl. 11B decreasing by Rs. 30 per ton the prices already fixed for all categories of steel Several criminal cases were instituted (Nos. 385-410 of 1954) against the said company, its three directors, its general manager & two salesmen (hereinafter called respondents 1 to 7) on the allegation that they had sold their old stock of steel for prices higher than those prescribed by the said notification of December 10, 1949. When the respondents had thus to face several criminal proceedings they filed three writ petitions in the Punjab High Court against the Union of Indian, the State of Punjab and others (hereinafter called the appellants). By their Writ Petition No. 36 of 1954 (23-3-54) they prayed for a direction, order or writ restraining the appellants from enforcing or giving effect to cl. 11B or the said notification, as well as a writ or order quashing the criminal proceedings commenced against them. The decision in this writ petition has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1955. Writ Petition No, 37 of 1954 (23-3-54) prayed for a similar order specifically in respect of the criminal cases Nos. 385-410 of 1954 then pending against the respondents, and asked for an interim stay of the said proceedings. The order passed on this writ petition has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1955. It appears that under some of the criminal proceedings filed against the respondents orders for search had been passed by the trial Magistrate on May 12, 1953. These orders were challenged by the respondents by their Writ Petition No. 52-D of 1954 (7-4-54). An appropriate writ was asked for quashing the warrants issued under the said orders. From the orders passed on this writ petition Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1955 arises. In all these writ petitions the respondents contention was that cl. 11B was invalid and unconstitutional as it violated Art. 19(1) (f) and (g) as well as Art. 31 of the Constitution. They also urged that the said clause was ultra vires the powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 3 of the Act. The notification issued by the Controller on December 10, 1949, was challenged by the respondents on the ground that it was issued under a clause which was invalid and was otherwise unreasonable and void. In substance the High Court has upheld the respondent s plea that cl. 11B is ultra vires as it is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. In the present appeals the appellants seek to challenge the correctness of this conclusion. Thus the main point which calls for our decision in this group of appeals is whether cl. 11B of the Order is valid or not.
2. The impugned clause forms part of the Order which has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-r. (2) of R. 81 of the Defence of India Rules. Before considerin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.