https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272560 Restrictions on cotton hedge contracts under the Cotton Control Order, 1950 were treated as reasonable limits on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because cotton was an essential commodity and hedging required supervision to prevent speculation and market instability. The constitutional challenge therefore failed on this ground. Differential exemption from the restrictions did not violate Article 14 because the established cotton association and the recently incorporated petitioner were not similarly situated; the petitioner had not established continuity with the earlier association on an equal footing. Selective hedging permissions were accordingly sustained, and the petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 25 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2018 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272560 Restrictions on cotton hedge contracts under the Cotton Control Order, 1950 were treated as reasonable limits on trade under Article 19(1)(g), because cotton was an essential commodity and hedging required supervision to prevent speculation and market instability. The constitutional challenge therefore failed on this ground. Differential exemption from the restrictions did not violate Article 14 because the established cotton association and the recently incorporated petitioner were not similarly situated; the petitioner had not established continuity with the earlier association on an equal footing. Selective hedging permissions were accordingly sustained, and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272560