LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MUKANCHAND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS cannot be combined as suggested by Mr. Palkhivala, but must be asserted each in its own way and within its own limits; the sweep of the several rights is no doubt wide, but the combination of any of those two rights would not justify a claim such as is made by Mr. Palkhivala in the present petitions. As soon as citizens form a company, the right guaranteed to them by Art. 19 ( 1 )( c) has been exercised and no restraint has been placed on that right and no infringement of that right is made. Once a company or a corporation is formed, the business which is carried on by the said company or corporation is the business of the company or corporation and is not the business of the citizens who get the company or corporation formed or incorporated, and the rights of the incorporated body must be judged on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributable to the business of individual citizens. Therefore, we are satisfied that the argument based on the distinction between the two rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (c) and (g) and the effect of their combination cannot take the petitioners' case very far when they seek to invoke the doctrine that the veil of the corporation should be lifted. That is why we have come to the conclusion that the petitions filed by the petitioners are incompetent under Art. 32, even though in each of these petitions one or two of the shareholders of the petitioning companies or corporation have joined. The result is, the second preliminary objection raised by the respondents is upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed as being incompetent under Art. 32 of the Constitution. There would be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MUKANCHAND AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, N. RAIAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. SJKRI JJ.) /agirdar's Debt Reduction Act (Rajasthan Act 9 of 1931)-Mortgagtl decree against tl·lagirdar-Whether <Jecutable-u. 2(e) and 7(2) Validity of--Conttitutlon of India, Art. t•. 1961 Tat.~ v. Stat• D/ B!Mr Ga/endrogadkar c. 1. 1961 February 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS JHI R .. polldcnt No. I obtained a mortiioge dccrcc for Rs. 1,14.581/14/6 ,...., 6f Rttlast/um asaint one Rao Raja ID<ler Singh (the jndi!Dent debtor). The mo~ v. money was advanced under three mortgages, and the mortgaaed properties llabndi.,1d coruistcd of Jagjrs an<! some non-Jagir immovable property. The latter property ,..... sold in exe<:ution and Rs. 33,75-0/- paid to the dee,.. holder i1l pertial satisr.ction of the decree. Then the decree bolder filed an execution petition in the Court of the District Judge for the balance amount i.e. Rs. 99,965/3/6, prayiog for attachment of the amount of compensation and rehabilitation grant which would be paid to the jutlgmcnt debtor on account of resumption of his Jagir. The jadJ!llllmcnt debtor 1ubmittcd two applicationa in which be claimed relief under '"· 5 and 7 of the Rajasthan Jagjrdan' Debt Reduction Act. The decree holder, in bis reply. to thOBC petitions urged that the provisions relied in were ultra vires the Constitution of India, being in contravention of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Thereafter the decree holder movecf a petition undeT Art. 228 of the Constitution before the Hi1rh Court, praying that the execution cue pending in the Court of the District Judge, be withdrawn from that court to the High Court. The Hisb Court transferred the case to its file. By its judgment the High Court could held that apart from the later part of s. 2(e) excluding certain debts and s. 7(2) of the Act, the rest of the Act was valid. The High Cottrt granted a certificate under Art. 13 3 (I )( c) of the Constitution to the Slate of Rajasthan to file an appeal to this Court. Hence the appeal:- Held:-(i) That the' impugned part of s. 2(e) infringes Art. 14 of the Constitution for the reason that no reasonable classification is dis- closed for the pnrpooe at sustaining the impugned part of s. 2(e). It is now well-settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classifi- cation, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (I) that the classifica- tion must be founded on an intelligible differentiation which distinguishes persons or things that are to be put together from others left out of the group. and (2) that the dilferential must have a rational relationshi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.