HARISHANKAR BAGLA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 14-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
_, -
E. D. Sassoon 
arul Companj Ltd. 
'" 
The Commissioner 
of Income-tax, 
'Bomb£!_'1! Cilj!. 
Jagannadhadas J. 
1954 
May 14. 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955j 
of both the assignor and the assignee. 
The prior 
assignments in the course of the year operated as assign-
ments of this future right to a share of the income. It 
is only by virtue of inter se arrangement between the 
assignor and the 
assignee, 
resulting from the trans-
actions of assignment, that the assignee had the right 
to collect the entire income. Nevertheless, the share in 
this income which accrued to the Sassoons on the 
completion of 
the year remained the taxable income 
of the Sassoons and they were rightly taxed in respect 
thereof. 
The very 
strenuous 
arguments of learned 
counsel for Sassoons to counter the above view are 
based on the insistence that the Managing Agency is 
like property which 
per se produces income 
and, on 
ignoring the distinction between right to receive the 
income and right to the ownership of the income and 
on treating the former as settling the question of the 
person to whom income accrues. In my opinion these 
arguments 
are 
unsustainable 
and 
the 
conclusion 
reached by the learned Judges of the Bombay High 
Court is correct. 
The appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 
l express no opinion on any of the other points raised. 
Appeals allowed. 
HARISHANKAR BAGLA AND ANOTHER 
f!. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MUKHER)EA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JT.J 
Constitution of India-Art. 19(1)(1) and (g)-Cotton Textile .f 
(Control of Movement) Order, 1948, cl. 3-Promu/gated under s. 3 
of Essential 
Supplies 
(Temporary 
Powers) 
Act, 1946-Permit-
Requirement of-to dispose of or transport cotton textiles-Whether 
violation of Art. 19(1)(1) and (g)-Essential Supplies (Temporary 
Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV of 1946) ss. 3, 4, 6-Whether ultra vires 
the Legislature on ground of delegation of legislative pou,1ers-s. 6-
Wh"ether repeals or abrogates-pre-existing laws-Effect of.the section 
-Delegation-Essential power of 
legislation-Whetl1er can be de-
legated-Principles underlying it-Requirements of permit by clauses 
3 and 4 of the Control Order-Whether in conflict with ss. 27, 28, 41 
of the Railway Act. 
,.::::;:-
-
-
• 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
381 
:;J-
Clause 3 of the Cotton Textile (Control of Movement) Order, 
1948, promulgated by the Central Government under section 3 of 
the 
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) 
Act, 1946, does not 
deprive a citizen of the right to dispose of or transport cotton tex-
tiles purchased by him. It requires him to 
take 
a permit from 
the Textile 
Commissioner to enable him to transport them. The 
requirement of a permit in this respect cannot be regarded as an 
unreasonable restriction 
on the citizen's right under sub-clauses ( f) 
and (g) of article 19(1) of the Constitution. 
The policy underlying the Control Order is 
to regulate the 
transport of cotton textiles in a manner that will ensure an even 
distribution of the commodity in the country and make it available 
at a fair price to all. The grant or a refusal of a permit is to be 
governed by the policy and the discretion given to 
the 
Textile 
Commissioner is to be exercised in such a way as to effectuate this 
policy. 
The conferment of such a discretion cannot be 
called in-
valid and if there is an abuse of power there is ample power in 
Courts to undo the mischief. 
Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar 
Pradesh ( [ 19~4] S.C.R. 803) distinguished. 
It was settled 
by the majority 
judgment in the 
Delhi Laws 
Act case ( [ 1951 J S.C.R. 747) that the essential powers of legislation 
cannot be delegated. 
The Legislature must declare the policy of the law and the 
legal principles which are to control any given cases 
and 
must 
provide a standard to guide the officials or the body in power to 
execute the law. 
The Legislature has laid down such a principle in the Act and 
that principle is the maintenance or increase in supply of essential 
commodities and of securing- equitable distribution and availability 
at given prices. 
-
The preamble and the body 
of the sections in the Essential 
• 
Supplies (Temporary Powers) 
Act, 1946, sufficiently formulate 
the 
legislative policy 
and the ambit and the character of the 
Act is 
such that the details of that policy can only be 
worked 
out 
by 
delegating that power to a subo

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