1981 (2) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the parties at great length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India nor is Art. 14 attracted to the facts of the present case. There is, therefore, no good ground to entertain the petitions. We would, however, like to add that on the materials placed before us the Government may consider the desirability of adopting such measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which, though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate Art. 14 or 19, do merit some consideration by the Government in order to effectuate the policy under which the impugned notification was made. There are, however, two arguments urged before us which need....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case of leases made either before or after the commencement of the Act a covenant not to assign without licence should be enforceable just as before.....This section is to be read as if it were contained in the Act of 1881, and is dealing with a subject-matter mentioned in the Act of 1881, and as to which there is in that Act a provision that the enactment shall apply to leases made either before or after commencement of the Act." Hardy, M.R. in a concurring judgment while construing second amendment in section 14 of the Conveyancing Act pointed out thus:- "In the First place, the language of the section is perfectly general, "in all leases," and there is nothing in the section itself to confine it to leases subsequent to the Act. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the field of industry, trade or commerce, it has to be remembered that the mere fact that some of those who are engaged in these are alleging loss after the imposition of law will not render the law unreasonable." (Emphasis Supplied) Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Prag Ice and Oil Mills and Anr. etc. v. Union of India(2) where the Court speaking through Beg, C.J., observed as follows: "It has also to be remembered that the object is to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices so that it is the interest of the consumer and not of the producer which is the determining factor in applying any objective tests at any particular time." In this view of the matter the primary consideration in the f....