POPPATLAL SHAH versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 30-03-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'I'S 
677 
this right iu favour of commuting the death sentence 
to a sentence for life. The denial of this right in the 
Hegulatiou is discriminatory ou the face of it aud 
deprives the petitioner of a valuable right. I concede, 
however, that this objectionable feature of the Regu-
lation is severable from the other parts. I further 
agree that the stage for the exercise of that right has 
uot yet arisen, for the appeal of the petitioner is still 
pending iu this court. If the appea,J is allowed, or 
the sentence is reduced, uo question of the confirm-
ation of the death sentence by the Nizam will arise. 
If, however, the appeal is dismissed, it will be open 
to the petitioner to claim this right. It would not be 
desirable at this stage to express au opinion whether 
this right is a substantive right which vests iu the 
petitioner or oue relating to a mere matter of proced-
ure, as that question will have to be considered aud 
decided when the appropriate stage arrives. 
I wou Id, therefore, agree iu dismissing the petition. 
Petition dismissed. 
Ageut for the petitioner: Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
POPPATLAL SHAH 
v. 
1'HE scrATE OF MADRAS. 
UNIO~ OF INDIA AND OTHERS-Iuterveuers. 
[PATANJALT SAsrnr O.J., MuKHERJEA, VrvrAN BosE, 
GHULAM HASAN aud BHAGWATI JJ.J 
Maclras Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939), ss. 2, 3 (before amendment 
of 1947)-" Sale within the vrovince", meaning of-Levy of tax on 
sales where vroverty in the goods vassed outside the vrovince -Legal· 
ity-Provincial Legislature-Territorial jurisdiction. 
Under the Madras Sales Tax Act, 1939, as it stood before it 
was amended by the '.\fadras Act XXV of 1947, the mere fact that 
the contrnct of sale was entered into within \he frovjnce of 
§§ 
1958 
Habe6b 
Mohamed 
v, 
Th• Stats of 
Hyderabad. 
Ghulam 
Ha1an J. 
1953 
March 80. 
678 
SUPREME COUR'f REPOR'I.
18 
(1953) 
19b3 
Madras did not make a transaction which was completed in another 
province where the property in the goods passed, a sale within the 
PoppJtlol Shah Province of Madras and no tax could be legally levied upon such a 
v. 
transaction under the provisions of the Act. 
The State of 
Madras. 
• 
Though a Provincial Leg:slature could not pass a taxation 
statute which would be binding on any other part of India it was 
quite competent for a province to enact a legislation imposing 
taxes on transactions concluded outside the province provided 
there was a sufficient and real territorial nexus between such 
transactions and the taxing province. 
The title and preamble, whatever their value might be as 
aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on 
the intention and design of the Legislature and indicate the scope 
and purpose of the legislation itself. 
It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legis-
lative intent all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken 
together and each word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in 
the light of the general purpose and object of the statute. 
Judgment of the Madras High Court reversed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JUHISDIOTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 92 of 1952. 
Appeal under articles 132(1) and 134(1) (c) of the 
Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order 
da,ted the 29th August, 1962, of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras (Rajamauuar C.J. and Veukata-
rama Ayyar J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1952 
arisiugout of the.order dated the 25th February, 195\l, 
of the Court of the VII Presidency Magistrate, 
Egmore, Madras, in C. T, No. 1368 of the Calendar 
for 1960. 
B. Somayya (0. R. Pattabhi Raman, with him) 
for the appellant . 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras (V. V. 
Raghavan and Alladi Kuppuswami with him) for the 
respondent. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (G. N. 
Joshi and P. A. Mehta, with him) for the Union of 
India. 
B. K. P. Sinha for the State of Bihar. 
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of Punjab (M. L. 
Sethi, with him) for the State of Punjab. 
8.C.R. 
SUPREME COUR1' REPOR'l'S 
679 
A. R. Somanatha Iyer, Advocate-General of Mysore 
1958 
(R. Ganapathy Iyer, with- him) for the t:)tate of 
- 1-
8 
h 
M 
· 
Poppa! al ha 
ysore. 
v. 
K. B. Asthana for the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
The Stat• of 
T. 
N. Subramanya 
Iyer, 
Advocate-General of 
Travancore-Cochin (M. R. Krishna Pillai and Bala-
krishna Iyer, with him) for the State oi Travancore-
Cochin. 
V. N. Sethi for the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
Hajarnavis 

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