TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Decisions on Cotton Export Regulation and Monopoly Trade</h1> The court upheld the validity of S.R.O. No. 379 under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, regulating the export of cotton to control prices and supply. It was ... - Issues:Challenge to validity of notifications under Cotton Control Order, 1950 - Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) - Validity of S.R.O. No. 379 - Prohibition on export of goods - Regulation of supply and demand of cotton - Compliance with Article 19(5) - Constitutionality of S.R.O. No. 388 - Impact on merchants' trade - Licensing provisions under Cotton Control Order, 1950 - Restriction on purchasing cotton - Monopolistic consequences - Comparison with legal precedents - Unconstitutionality of S.R.O. No. 388.Analysis:The judgment involved two petitions challenging the validity of notifications issued under the Cotton Control Order, 1950. The first notification, S.R.O. No. 379, regulated the export of cotton and aimed to control prices and supply to serve public interest. The court found that the restrictions did not adversely affect the petitioners as prices were fixed and demand exceeded supply. The argument based on Article 301 was overruled, citing Clause 17 of the Control Order of 1949 and Article 305. Thus, S.R.O. No. 379 was deemed valid and constitutional.Moving on to S.R.O. No. 388, the court analyzed its impact on merchants holding licenses under the Cotton Control Order, 1950. The notification prevented merchants from purchasing cotton, effectively halting their trade. This led to a concentration of trade in the hands of a few monopolists, eliminating opportunities for a large class of merchants. Drawing parallels with legal precedents, the court highlighted cases where unreasonable restrictions on trade were deemed void under Article 19(1)(g). The court concluded that S.R.O. No. 388 unjustly prevented merchants from conducting business without serving any demonstrable public advantage, rendering it unconstitutional and void.In the final verdict, one petition was ordered with costs while the other was dismissed with costs. The judgment was certified to involve a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, specifically Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f) and (g) in conjunction with Article 19(5) and (6). The detailed analysis of the notifications under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, provided clarity on the balance between regulatory measures and individual rights within the realm of trade and commerce.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
