SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd December, 1959
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Narendra Kumar and others, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 85 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agrawala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. R. Gopala Krishnan and K. P. Gupta, Advocates, with him), for Petitioners; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondents.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : The three persons who have filed this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of their fundamental rights conferred by Art. 14, Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 19(1)(g) thereof are dealers in imported copper and carry on their business at Jagadhri in the State of Punjab. On different dates prior to April 3, 1958, they entered into contracts of purchase of copper with importers at Bombay and Calcutta, Before, however, they could take delivery from the importers the Government of India issued on 2-4-1958, an order called the "Non-ferrous Metal Control Order, 1958" hereafter referred to as "the order" in exercise of its powers under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (Act X of 1955) - referred to hereafter as "the Act". In this order "non-ferrous metal" was defined to mean "imported copper; lead, tin and zinc in any of the forms specified in the Schedule of the order." The Order was from the very beginning made applicable to imported copper. The price was controlled by Cl.3 of the Order which provides in its first sub-clause that
"no person shall sell or offer to sell any non-ferrous metal at a price which exceeds the amount represented by an addition of 3 1/2 p. c. to its landed cost,"
and in its second sub-clause that
"no person shall purchase offer to purchase from any person non-ferrous metal at a price higher than at which it is permissible for that other person to sell to him under sub-Cl. (i)."
Clause 4 is designed to regulate the acquisition of non-ferrous metal by permit only and provides that
"no person shall acquire or agree to acquire any non-ferrous metal except under and in accordance with a permit issued in this behalf by the Controller in accordance with such principles as the Central Government may from time to time specify."
Clauses 5 and 6 of the Order made it obligatory on the importers to notify quantities of non-ferrous metal imported and to maintain certain books of account, while the last clause i.e., Cl. 7 confers powers on the Controller to enter and search any premises in order to inspect any book or document and to seize any non-ferrous metal in certain circumstances. This Order was published in the Gazette of India on 2-4-1958. No principles specified by the Central Government in accordance with Cl. 4 of the Order were however published either on this date or any other date. Certain principles were however specified by the Central Government in a communication addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India dated 18-4-1959, to the chief Industrial Adviser to the Government of India, New Delhi. The relevant portion of this communication is in these words:
"The following principles shall govern the issue of permits by the Controller :
(1) In respect of the scheduled industries under the Control of the Development Wing, the Controller will determine the 6 monthly requirements of actual users based on their production in the year 1956;
(2) In the case of small scale industries the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on the certificate of the State Directors of Industries will inform the Controller of the quantities that the units would be entitled to and thereupon the Controller will make such quantities available to these units from time to time,
(3) The Controller shall normally release one month s requirements at a time to the consuming units and the permit shall be valid for a period of two months; but if heavy imports are reported the Controller shall have the discretion to issue stocks in larger quantities."
2. The position immediately on the issue of the Order on 2-4-1958, thus was that no person could buy or sell imported copper at a price above the landed cost plus 3 1/2 p. c. thereof and that no person could acquire or agree to acquire such copper except under a permit issued by the Controller. In issuing such permits the Controller was to be governed by such principles as the Central Government would specify. After the principles were specified in th
REFERRED : Gopalan V. State of Madras
Chintaman Rao V. State of Madhya Pradesh
Cooverjee B. Bharucha V. Excise Commr. and the Chief Commissioner Ajmer
Madhya Bharat Cotton Association Ltd. V. Union of India
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.