LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. 1961 M•mpn Abdul Karim v. "1· Ciutodla11 G•noral 'WIUIChoo /. SUPREME COURT REPORTS that this was a loan and not a deposit, for he never pleaded at any time before the authorities concerned that even if it was a deposit the recovery would be barred by time. We are of opinion that there is force in this contention on behalf of the respondents and we are not prepared to allow the appellant to ·raise the questfon whether the recovery would be barred eve.n if the amount is treated as a deposit. In this view of the matter, it would · not be necessary to consider the exact effect of s. 48 ( 3) and to decide whether it will apply even to cases where the recovery had become barred under the Limitation Act before October 22, 1956. We therefore do not allow the appellant to raise the point that the recovery would be barred even if the amount was a deposit. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby clismWed witll cos ta. Appeal. dismissed. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAll AND s. M. S!KRI JJ.) .Iqua/ Protection of Lllw......Oeographical clas•ification du• to hiSlorical ttOIOn.t whethef valid-II upheld-Time-limit for adjustments, .ii pos1il!le-Difierential trlatment-Mere plea not su/ficient-Coriitl- fution oi India, A.rt. 14--Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax A.ct, !9S3 (Bhopal A.ct 11 of 1953) . The respondent, a company incorporated in the former State .of. Bhopal, presented a petition in August 1960 under Art. 226 · of Iha Constitution "in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for a writ restraini111 the Stale of Madhya Pradesh from enforcing the Bhopal State Agri· cliltural Income-tax Act, 1953, claiming that the Act contravened Iha respondent's right under Art. 14 of. the Constitution. lly the Stater lleorganisation Act, 1956 the territory of tho State of BhOPal ..,. 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS incorporated from November I, 1956 into the newly formed State of 1964 Madhya Pradesh. The States Reorganisation Act by s. 119 continued Still , Mad..__ the operation of the laws in force in the territories in which they were 1 ,.';;,.,ui ~,.... previously in force until the competent legislature or rtuthority amended, 'Y. altered or modified these laws. Shortly after the reoraanisation. the B/torxll s.,.. Madhya Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 was issued so as to lndiutrln make certain laws applicable uniformly to the entire State and later the Lrg:slatnre by the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958 made other alterations in the laws applicable to the State. But llhopal Act 11 of 1953 remained unamended or unaltered: nor was its Operation extended to the other areas or regions in the State with the result that Agrii:ultural lncome-tru< was levied within the territory of tho former State of Bhopal and not in the rest of the territory of the Stato of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court held that tho provisions of Bhopal Act .11 of 1953 contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution and observed that though the State had removed diversity in some of tho laws of the component regions, no attempt was made to remove discrimination between the territory of the former Bhopal ~ltate and the rest of the territories of the State of Madhya Pradesh with respect lo this law. Held: (i) Where application of unequal laws is reasonably ju.•tifietl for historical reasons, a geographical classification founded on tboso historical reasons would be upheld. The legislature bas always Ibo power to make special laws to attain particular objects and for that purpose has authority to select or· classify persons, objects or trans. llClions upon which the law is intended to operate. Differential treai- ment becomes unlawful only when it is arbitrary or not supported by • rational relation with the object of the statute. Bhaiyalal Shukia v. S!ate of MadhY.a Pradesh, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 257, The State of Madhya Pradesh v. The Gwalior Sugar Co., [1962] 2 S.C.R. 619, Maharaj Kumar Prithivi Raj v. State of Rajasthan, C.A. Nos. 327-328, dated 2-11-1960 and Anand Prasad Lakshminiv., Ganeriwal v. State of A1ulhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 853. relied on. State of Raja1than Y. Rao Manohar Singhji, [1954] S.C.ll. 996, Kplained. (ii) It would be impossible to lay down any definite time-limit within which the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to olfectuate the equa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.