H. C. NARAYANAPPA AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 28-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
1960 
here any hypothetical difficulty which may arise in the 
Commissioner of 
lnco.ne-ta,,; 
application of s. 6. 
. 
The appellant relies, on the third proviso to s. 5 of 
the Act in support of the contention that it excludes 
the Baroda business of the assessee and the losses of 
that business cannot be set off against the profits of 
the business in India, and the appellant can succeed only· 
on establishing that the proviso clearly and without any 
ambiguity excludes the Baroda business. 
We agree 
with the High Court that if there is any ambiguity of 
language, the benefit of that ambiguity must be given 
to the assessee. However, the· conclusion at which we 
have arrived is that on the language of the proviso as it 
stands, it does not exclude the Baroda business of the 
assessee but exempts only the income, profits or gains 
thereof unless they are received or deemed to be re-
ceived in or brought into India. Accordingly, the High 
Court correctly answered the question of law referred 
to it. The appeal fails. and is dismissed with costs. 
v. 
Knramch,,nd 
Pre,nchand Ltd. 
S.K. Das J. 
1960 
April 28 
Appeal dismissed. 
H. C. NARAYANAPPA AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STA.TE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS 
(B. P. Sinha, C.J.,' Jafer Imam, A. K. Sarkar, 
K. Subba Rao and J.C. Shah, JJ.) 
. Transport Business-Stage carriages-Exclusion of private 
operators-Competence of Parliament to create monopolies-Grant 
of monopoly to State for transport business-Scheme framed by 
State for State Transport Undertaking-Legality-Motor Vehicles 
Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), Ch. IV A, ss. 68C, 68D (2)--Constitution 
of India, Arts. 12, 13(3)(a), 19(l)(g), 19(6), 298, Seventh Schedule, 
List II, entry 26, List III, entries 21, 35. 
In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 68C of the Motor 
Vehicles Act 1939, the General Manager of the Mysore Govern-
ment Road Transport Departmem published a scheme for the ex-
clusion of p~ivate operators on certain routes in a specified area 
and reservation of those routes for the State Transport Undertak-
ing. 
The scheme was 
approved by the 
Government 
under 
s. 68D(2) of the Act ater the 
Chief Minister of the State bad 
given an opµortunity to the operators affected by the scheme to 
make 
r~i:resentations objecting to it. 
The petitioners who were 
tf-, 
.... 
-
' 
. ., 
• 
... 
-
""· 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
743 
printe operators challenged the validity of the scheme and the 
Jl}(j(J 
action taken by the Government pursuant to it on the grounds, 
Utter alil. ( 1) that the petitioners have a fundamental right to 
N•l!Jlaru¥Pa 
airry on the business of plying stage carriages and that the pro-
v. 
visions of Ch. IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which pro-
State of MJsore 
vide for the right of the State to exclusive right to carry on 
·motor transport business are invalid, (2) that by Ch. IV A Parliament 
had merely attempted to regulate the procedure for entry by the 
State into the business of motor transport in the State, and that 
in the absence of legislation expressly undertaken by the State in 
that behalf, 
that 
State was 
incompetent to 
enter into the 
arena of motor transport 
business to the exclusion of private 
operators, and (3) that the scheme violated the equal protection 
clause of the Constitution because only fourteen out of a total of 
thirty one routes on which stage carriages were plied for public 
transport in the area specified were covered by the scheme : 
Held, (l) that the expression 
"commercial and industrial 
monopolies" in entry 21 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of 
the Constitution of India is wide enough to include grant or crett-
tion of commercial or industrial monopolies to the State and citi-
zens as well as control of monopolies. 
· 
(2) th!!! it is' competent for the Parliament to enact Ch. IVA 
o.f the Act under entry 21 read with entry 35 of List III. 
(3) that the scheme framed under s. 68C of the Motor Vehi-
cles Act may be 
regarded as "law" 
within the 
meaning of 
Art. 19(6) of the Constitution, made by the State excluding private 
operators from notified routes or notified 
areas, and immune 
from the attack that it infringes the fundamental right guaran-
teed by Art. 19(l)(g). 
( 4) that on a true reading, the scheme in question was approv-
ed in. relation to the fourteen notified routes and not in relation 
to a notified area and that as a scheme under s. 68C of the Act 
may be one in relation to an area or a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.