KOTESWAR VITTAL KAMATH versus K. RANGAPPA BALIGA & CO.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 09-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

40 
KOTESWAR VITTAL KAMATH 
v. 
K. RANGAPPA BALIGA & CO. 
December 9, 1968 
[J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAID!AL!NGAM, JJ.) 
Travancore-Cochin Public ·Safety Measures Act 5 of 1950, s. 3-
Validity of-Constitution of India, Art, 304(b) proviso-Bill introduced 
tn pre-Constitution period-Amended by Select Committee-Moved again 
and passed in post·ConstUution period-President's sanction 
when re· 
quired-Travancore-Cochin Vegetable Oils and Oilcakes (Forward Con-
tracts Prohibition) Order, 1950--Continuance of. 
The Vegetable Oils and Oilseeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) 
Order. 111~ M.E. prohibiting inter alia forward trading in cocoanut oil, 
was promulgated by the Mallaraja of Cochin State in 1944. The Order 
continued in foree under various Cochin Laws including Proclamation 5 
of 1122 and Act 8 of 1122. When the State of Cochin acceded to India 
and the combined State of Travancore-Cochin was formed, the said pro-
clamation 5 of 1122 and Act 8 of 1122 as also the orders etc. passed 
thereunder were continued by the 
Travancore-Cochin 
Administration 
an Application of Laws Act 6 of 1125. In exercise of the powers under 
these laws the Travancore-Cochin Government 
promulgated on 
8th 
March 1950, the Travancore-Cocbin Vegetable Oils and Oilcakes (For-
ward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1950, whereby tho prohibition against 
forward trading in certain oils including cOcoanut oil was continued. Then 
came the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act 5 of 1950, which 
with effect from 30th March 1950 repealed a number of enactments in-
cluding Proclamation 5 of 1112 and Act 8 of 1112, but by s, 73(2) 
eontinued the orders etc. passed under the repealed Acts as if they had 
been passed under its s. 3. 
The Bill relating to Act 5 of 1950 
was 
introduced in the State Legislature before the passing of the Constitution, 
but thereafter it was amended by the Select Committee, and the amended 
Bill was moved in and passed by the Legislature in the post-Constitution 
period. 
By Amending Act 52 of 1950, the Essential Supplies (Tempo-
rary Powers) Act 24 of 1946 was extended to Part B States, and became 
effective in Cochin area from August 17, 1950. Section 17(4) of the 
last mentioned Act replealed Act 5 of 1950, but contin1ted the orders etc. 
passed thereunder. 
In 1952 the appellant entered into con.tracts for the purchase of cocoa-
nut oil on one month's 'vaida' through the agency of the respondent who 
was a Pakka Adatia. The contracts were entered into in territory which 
formerly formed part of the State o.f Cochin. On the due date the appel· 
lant failed to take deli,-ery of the goods or to pay the difference in price. 
whereupon the respondent filed a suit for damages. The appellant's 
defence was that the contracts in question, being forward contracts were 
in contravention of the Prohibition Order of 1950 and therefore void 
ond unenforceable. The trial court and High Court rejected this con-
tention and decreed the suit. The High Court took the view that the 
earlier laws under which the Prohibition Order of 1950 was passed were 
repealed by Act 5 of 1950 and the Orders thereunder could '!ot 
be 
deemed to continue under s. 3 of the latter Act because that section w~s 
void for non-compliance with the pro:viso to Art. 304(~) of the Consti-
tution. In appeal by certificate to this Court the questions that fell for 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
K, V. KAMATH V. RANGAPPA 
41 
A 
consideration were : (i) whether the Prohibition Order of 1950 was voicl 
on the ground that it dealt with future markets on which Parliament had 
the exclusive power to legislate; (ii) whether s. 3 of Act 5 of 1950 fell 
within the scope of Art. 
304(b) of the Constitution; (iii) whether sanc-
tion, of the President was reqmred under the proviso to Art. 304(b) when 
the Bill relating to Act 5 of 1950 was moved in the Legislature after 
having been amended by the Select Committee. 
B 
HELD : (i) In the present case it was not necessary to express any 
opinion on the question whether the Prohibition Order of 1950 was void 
for want of legislative competence, for if it was void it would have to be 
treated as non est and the earlier Prohibition Order of 
1119 
would 
continue in force right up to 30th March 1950. Conse.quently on 
the 
30th March 1950 either the Prohibition Order 1119 or the Prohibition 
Order of 1950 must be held to have been in force in Travancore-Cochin 
C 
and to h~ve continued in force under Act 5 of 1950. [47 C-E;

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