P. D. SHAMDASANI versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD.

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 21-12-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
391 
P. D. SHAMDASANI 
v. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. 
f P.\TANJALI SAS'I'RI C. J., MEHR CHAh"'D MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs 
and CHANDRASEKHARA 
A1YAR 
JJ.J 
Co11stiiut1o11 of India, Arts. 19(1) (f), 31(1), 32-lnfringement of 
j~roperty rights by private individttals-Application ttnder An. 32 
-Maintainability--Scopc of Arts. 19(1) (f) and 31(1). 
Article 19(1) (£) of the Constitution 
is clearly intended to. 
protect 
the freedom to acquire, 
hold and dispose of property 
against State action other than in the legitimate exercise of its 
power to regulntc private rights in the public interest. 
Similarly, 
article 31(1) provides a safeguard against dcpriYation of property 
by the State except by procedure established by law. 
Violation 
o{ rights of property by private individuals 
is not within the 
purview of those articles. 
A person whose rights of property are infringed by a private 
individual must therefore seek his 
remedy under the ordinary 
law and not by way of an application under article 32. 
ORIGINAL JuRISDicTION : Petition No. 328 of 
1951. 
Petition under article 32 of the 
Constitution for issue 
of wr.its in the 
nature of certiorari, prohibition and 
mandamus. 
The facts appear in the judgment. 
The. petitioner in person. 
C. K. Daplitary, 
Solicitor-General of India, (J. B. 
, 
Dadachanji. with him) for the respondent. 
1951. 
December 
21. 
The 
Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
PAT.\NJALI SAsTRI C. J.-Thi, 
i5 a 
petition under 
article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of 
the petitioner's fundamental rights under article 19(1) 
(f) and article 31 ( l) alleged to h;ive 
been violated by 
the Central Bank of India Ltd., a company incorporat-
ed under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, and having 
its registered office at Bombay, (hereinafter referred to 
as "the Bank"). 
It appears that the petitioner held five shares in the 
share capital of the Bank which sold those shares to a 
195) 
D!!c. 21. 
1951 
P. D. Sham-
dasani 
v. 
Central Bank of 
India Ltd. 
Patanjali 
Sastri C. }. 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
third party in purported exercise of its right of lien for 
recovery of a debt due to it from the petitioner, and 
the transfer was registered in the books of the Bank in 
the year 
1937. 
The petitioner thereupon instituted a 
series of proceedings in the High Court at Bombay on. 
its original and appellate jurisdiction challenging the 
validity of 
the said sale and transfer. 
The latest of 
these proceedings was a suit filed against the Bank in 
1951 wherein the 
plaint was rejected on 
2nd March, 
1951, under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), of the Code of Civil 
Procedure as barred by limitation. 
The petitioner now 
prays that all the adverse orders made in the previous 
proceedings be quashed and the said 
High Court be 
directed to have "the above suit set down to be heard 
as undefended and pronounce judgment against the res-
pondent or to make such orders 
as it 
thinks fit in 
relation to the said suit". 
It may be mentioned here 
that though the aforesaid order rejecting the petitioner's 
plaint was appealable, the petitioner did not prefer an 
appeal on the 
somewhat extraordinary 
ground that 
"the appeal if filed could not be heard by the Judges 
of the said Court as all of them were disqualified from 
hearing such appeal" 
either because of their 
interest 
in the Bank or because of their prejudice against him. 
vre are 
of opinion that 
the 
petitioner has mis-
conceived his remedy and the petition must fail on a 
preliminary ground. 
Neither 
article 19 (1) (f) nor 
article 31 (1) on its true construction was intended to 
prevent wrongful individual acts or to provicle protec-
tion against merely private conduct. Article 
19 deals 
with the "right to freedom" and by clause (1) assures 
to the citizen 
certain fundamental freedoms including 
the freedom "to acquire, hold and dispose of property" 
subject to the power of the State to impose restrictions 
on the exercise of such rights to the extent and on the 
grounds mentioned in clauses (2) to ( 6). The language 
and structure of article 19 and ir.. setting in Part III 
of the Constitution 
clearly show that the article was 
intended-to protect those freedoms against State action 
other than in the 
legitimate 
exercise of 
its power 
to regulate private 
rights 
in 
the 
public 
interest. 
" . 
-
' > 
I~ 
,/ 
~ 
S.C.R .. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
393 
Violation of rights of prope

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