KOTESWAR VITTAL KAMATH versus K. RANGAPPA BALIGA & CO.

KOTESWAR VITTAL KAMATH versus K. RANGAPPA BALIGA & CO.

Section 3 of Act 5 of 1950 was validly passed as the Bill was introduced before the Constitution came into force, and no amendment requiring Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) was moved after the Constitution was enacted. The Prohibition Orders were validly continued, and the contracts entered by the parties were prohibited by law, hence unenforceable.

Parties
Appellant: Koteswar Vittal Kamath; Respondent: K. Rangappa Baliga & Co.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Judgment and Decree Dated August 9, 1963 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 153 of 1959
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suit dismissed; decree of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, Freedom of Trade and Commerce, Validity of Contracts, Presidential Sanction Under Art. 304(b)
Constitutional Law Commercial Law Legislative Competence Freedom of Trade and Commerce Validity of Contracts Presidential Sanction Under Art. 304(b)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koteswar Vittal Kamath

Appellant

K. Rangappa Baliga & Co.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Certificate From Judgment and Decree Dated August 9, 1963 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 153 of 1959

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Travancore-Cochin Vegetable Oils and Oilcakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1950 was void for lack of legislative competence
  2. 2 Whether section 3 of Act 5 of 1950 fell within the scope of Article 304(b) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether sanction of the President was required under the proviso to Article 304(b) when the Bill relating to Act 5 of 1950 was amended and passed in the post-Constitution period

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3 of Act 5 of 1950 was validly passed as the Bill was introduced before the Constitution came into force, and no amendment requiring Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) was moved after the Constitution was enacted. The Prohibition Orders were validly continued, and the contracts entered by the parties were prohibited by law, hence unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suit dismissed; decree of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Decree of the High Court is set aside.
  • Suit is dismissed.