THE LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS LTD., AND ANOTHER versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 06-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.. .. 
I 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
39 
before the Tribunal was to produce the statements 
x959 
recorded by the manager during what we have called Phulbari Tea Estati 
investigation. This left the matters where they were 
v. 
and Das had never an opport.unity of questioning the 
Its Workmen 
witneRRes after knowing in full what they had stated 
against, him. In these circumstances we are of opinion 
that the fiw.ling of t.he •rrilmnal that the enquiry i11 
this case was uot proper is correct and must Htand. 
'Ve therefore dismiss tlw appeal. 
We should, 
howeYer, like to make it elear tlrnt the order of tlw 
Tribunal fixing grant of compcnsa,tion till the date of 
payment must be taken to be limited to the sum of 
Rs. 11,125, which has been deposited in this Court in 
pursuance of this Court's order of April 22, 1957 and 
Das will not be entitled t.o anything more, as further 
stay of payment was pursuant to the order of this 
Court. In the circumstances we are of opinion that 
the parties should hear their own eosts of thits Court. 
Appeal dismis8ed. 
THE I.ORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILV3 LTD., 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTH"ll~R 
(and connected petition) 
(B. l:'. SINHA, .J AFER IMAM, ,J. L. KAP(TR, A. K. SARKAR, 
SUH"HA RAO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, ,TJ.) 
Constitution--Fundami:ntal Rights-Rcsirictions on-Reason-
ableness, relei·anf. considerations for fudging-Enactment obliging 
sugar manufacturers to s11.pply sugar for export ,,f loss-Notijicat-ion 
tinder another enactment increasing price of sugar for internal sale 
for recouping loss--Whether can 
be tulwn into consideration-
Discrimination-Sitgar Export Promotion Act, I958 (30 of I958), 
ss. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9-Constifation of India, Arts. I4 and I9-
Essential Commodities Act, I955 (IO of I955), s. 3--Sugar (Control) 
Wanchoo J. 
1959 
May 6. 
, • 
Order, I955. cl. 5· 
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Sugar 
Export Promotion Act, 1958, which was enacted for the purpose 
of exporting sugar with a view to earning foreign exchange. The 
impugned Act imposed the following restrictions on the owners of 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960(1)) 
z959 
factories producing sugar by the vacuum pan process: (i) it 
-. . 
obliged them to deliver to the export agency specified by the 
The Lord E.rishna Central Government the quota of sugar allocated to them; (ii) it 
Sugar Mills Ltd .• made them suffer a loss on this delivery of sugar; and (iii) it 
and Another 
exposed them to a penalty in case the delivery \vas short of the 
v. 
quota. By a notification issued under the Sugar (Control) Order, 
Thi! trnion of India 1955, which was made under·the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, 
and Another 
the Central Government increased the price of sugar for internal 
sales by 50 nP. per maund to enable the owners to recoup the 
loss suffered by them by the delivery of the sugar for export. 
The petitioners contended that it was not permissible to take the 
notification issued under another statute into consideration and 
that the impugned Act offended Arts. 14 and l9(1)(f) and (g) of 
the Constitution. 
Held, (per Sinha, Imam, Kapur, Sobba Rao and Hidayatul-
lah, JJ., Sarkar, J. dissenting) that the impugned Act was 
constitutionally valid. 
Per Sinha, Imam, Kapur and Hidayatullah, JJ. The 
restrictions placed by the Act upon the fundamental rights of the 
petitioners under Arts. 19(1)(0. and (g) were not unreasonable as 
arrangements \Vere made to save them frotn Joss by increasing 
the price of sugar for internal sales, thus passing on the loss to 
the consumers in India. The reasonablrness of the restriction 
and not of the law was to be determined, and if the restriction 
was under one la\v but countervailing advantages were created 
by another law passed as part of the same legislative plan, the 
Court must take that other law into account. The reasonableness 
of the restriction was to be judged at the time it was challenged 
and in the context of the circumstances then existing. The 
notification of the Central Government increasing the price of 
sugar to enable the recoupment of the loss occasioned by the 
export could 
be taken 
into consideration 
in 
judging the 
reasonableness of the restrictions. 
State of Madras v. V. G. Row [ro52j S.C.R. 597; Virendra v. 
The Slate of Pmijab, [1958] S.C.R. 308; Aru11achalam Nadar ''· 
State of Madras, 1959 S.C.J. 297; Attorney-General for Alberta v. 
Attorney-General for Canada, (1939) A. C. II7; Ladore 

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