LexCHATTURBHUJ VITHALDAS JASANI versus MORESHWAR PARASHRAM AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 817 allow the licensing authority to make any reduction he likes. On the whole we are of the opinion that clauses (7) and (8) of the Control Order do not impose unreasonable restrictions upon the freedom of trade enjoyed by the petitioners and consequently the declaration of the 16th of Juiy, 1953, cannot be held to be invalid. The result is that, in our opinion, clause 4(3) of the Control Order as well as tbe cancellation of the petitioners' licence should be held to be invalid and a writ in the nature of mandamus would issue against the respond- ents opposite parties preventing them from enforcing the cancellation order. The rest of the prayers of the petitioners arc disallowed. \Ve make no order as to costs. Petition partly allot11ed. Agent for the petitioners : Ga11pat Rai. Agent for the respondents : C. P. Lal. CHA TTURBHUJ VITHALDAS JASANI v. MORESHW AR P ARASHRAM AND OTHERS. [MuKHERJEA, V1v1"" BosE and BHAGWATI JJ. / Represellfation of t!1c People Act (XLlll of 1951), s. 7(d)-A firm entering into co11trac1s with Central Govern1ne11t for supply of goods-A candidate seeking election for Parlianient, a partner of the said firm on the crucial dates-Disqualificatio11-Co11stitution of India, art. 299(1)-Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872) s. 230(3)- Contract ivith Gover111nent not in proper forn1-TVhether void- Ratification-Contract for supply of goods-Subsists till fully dis- charged by both sides-And payn1ent. 1nade-Person of Scheduled Caste Mahar convertt'd to 1\fahanubhava Pa11th-FVhether convert..,· caste statu.i altered. A contract for the supply of goods does not tenninate \Vhcn the goods arc supplied, it continues into being till pay1ncnt is made and the contract is fully discharged by performance on both sides. O'Carroll v. Hastingt ([1905] 2 LR. 590) and Satyendrakumal' })as v. Chairn1an of the Municipal Com1nissioners of Dacca (I.L.R . 58 Cal. 180) relieJ upon. The firm Moolji Sicka and Company of was a partner had _ entered into contracts which the candidate \Vith the Central 1954 .. i\.ftssrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttw Pradesh and Two Others. Mukhtrjea J. 1954 February 15. 1954 Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Par ashram and Others. 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] (;overnn1ent for the supply of goods. The contracts subsisted on the crucial dates, Nove1nber 15, 1951, and February 14, 1952. Novernber 15, 1951, \Vas the last date for putting in nominations. an<l February 14, 1952, \Vas the date on which results were declared : Held, that the candidate had both a share and an interest in the contracts for the supply of goods to th~ appropriate Govern- n1ent on the crucial dates and was thus disqualified for being chosen as a member of Parliament by virtue of the disqualification set out ins. 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951). Held further, that the contention that the contracts in ques- tion \Vere void because the l}nion Government could not be .sued by reason of art. 299(1) of the Constitution as the contracts were not expressed to be nlade by the President was without force be- cause this was the type of case to which s. 230(3) of the Indian Contract Act would apply. \\.'hen a Government officer acts in excess of authority Govern- ment is bound if it ratified the excess. T/1e Collector of J.\1asulipatam v. Cavaly Venkata Narrainapah (8 M.l.A. 519) relied upon. A member of Castes continues conversion to the version imports certain ideological status. the Mahar caste \vhich is one of the Scheduled to be a member of the Mahar caste despite his tenet.s of the ~IahanubhaYa Panth as such con- little beyond an intellectual acceptance of tenets and does not alter the convert's caste Abraham v. A />raham (9 M.I.A. 199) relied upon. C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1953. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 15th July, 1953, of the Election Tri- bunal, Nagpur, in Election Petition No. 3 of 1952. B. Sen and T· P. Naik for the appellant. Veda Vyas (S. K. Kapur with him) for respondent No. 1. 1954. February 15. The Judgment of th<' Court was defo ere.cl by BosE J.-This is an appeal against a decision of the Nagpur Election Tribunal. The contest before • the tribunal was about two seats rn the Bhandara Parliamentary Constimen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.