LexBOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS r 831 Besides; the containers are produced only for the ; use of the Mills. They are not intended to be sold in the market at all. Price for the containers is not also charged from the customers. Indeed, containers are required even for the purpose of storage of the vegetable oil. It is thus clear that the fabrication of tin containers has been under· taken by the Mills only as a feeder activity ; it is integrally connected with its main business of pro· ducing and marketing vegetable oil and as such, it is 't minor. part of the said activity. Having regard to the relevant facts admitted or proved in the present case, we are satisfied that the High Court. was right in coming to the conclusion that the Mills was not a factory within the meaning of section 1(3)(a). The result is, the appeal .'lo. 387 of 1959 fails and is dismissed with costs. C.A. 361 of 1959 allowed. C.A: 387 of 1959 dismissed. BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD. v. THE STATE 01<' BIHAR AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHoo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, and T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) P.undamental right - Right to hold property_ Ad. d' t' t t"tl d' ~u zca· b i~n a8 O ,' .de .Pe~ z~y -Question of infringement, if could ariBe e,ore sue,, a ~udzcatiun - Constitu,tion of India Arts.19(1) (f) 31(1) - Bihar Lanrl Reforms Act 1950 (Bihar 1 of 1950)' •. 4(h). . ' h The property regarding which the contention is raised t at the fundamental rights of the· petitioners under Arts. 19(1) (f) and 3] (I) of tl1e Constitution "'" "-lleged to 1962 Tire Regiortal Provident Fund Comm;ssion~r, Bombay v. Sh~ee Krishna M~tal M anufocturing Co., llnondora Gajendragadkat J. 1962 Morch 14, 19Gt Bsl.:aro a11d Ram:Jur Lid v. The State of Bihar 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1962] SUPP. have heen infrin!(ed is a plot of land within the Municipal I imits of I-lazaribagh with certain buildin~s and structures thereon,,vhic!t originally belonged to the Raja of Ramgarh. On January 16, I ~l41l, the Raja leased this property to I': for a ter1n of 99 years and son1eti1ne thereafter settled his reversion· ary interest of the property for the benefit of a Trust. The estate of Ramgarh was notified under s. 3( 1) of the Bihar Land Reforms /\ct for being taken over by the Govcrn1ncnt of Bihar and in consequence, the estate statu- torily vested in th~ State of Bihar. A notice was issued to N to shov.· cause \Vhy the lease executed in his favou1; should not be set aside under s.4(h) of the act as the lease was executed well within the period sperified under s. 4(h). N submitted objections standing that these properties \Vere not covered by s. 4(h). During the pendcncy of the enquiry, I': surrendered his leasehold to the trust. The Trust !cased the property to one B \vho assigned his leasehold interest in the property to the petitioner company. l,he present petition sought to quas the said proceedings under s. 4(h) pending before the Collec- tor wherein an enquiry was having held as to the manner in which the property in question was being enjoyed by the Raja of Rarngarh prior to the transfer by lease for 99 years. The question is whether any fundamental rights of the petitio· ncr have been infringed by the enquiry being held. Held, that hcfore a party could complain of an i11fringc- ment of his fundamental rights to hold property he must estahlish that he has title to that property and if that title itself is in dispute and is the· subject of adjudication ~n proceedings legally constituted, .he ca~not obviously put for,vard any claim based on ~ur.h utle until as a resull of that enquiry his title established. It is only thereafter that the question whether his rights in or to that property have been improperly or illegally infrinl(ed could arise. CrVJL APPELLATE Ju111su1C'l'IO!-i: Writ Petition N0. 19 of 1961. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. A. V. Viiiwanatlta Sustri and D. N. M·ukhe1jGe, for the petitioners. Bajrang Sakai and S. P. Varma, for the res- pondents. II 3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 833 1962. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANG.IB, J.-We consider that this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is entirely devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed as miscon- ceived as it does not involve any question of the infringement of any fundam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.