Skip to content


State of Mysore and anr. Vs. Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1958SC1002; [1958]9STC188(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article - 286 and 286(1); Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 182; Cotton Textile (Export Control) Order
AppellantState of Mysore and anr.
RespondentMysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and ors.
Books referredWebster's Dictionary
Excerpt:
- .....authority.'the high court considered this matter and held against the appellant before us that'the sales in question are not affected by the provisions of article 286(2) of the constitution.'there is therefore a finding on this point but not on the other. our remand should therefore have been confined to article 288(l)(a) and not to article 286(2). we have not considered the position under article 286(2).28. our order of 11-2-1958, will accordingly be amended as follows. in the third paragraph from the end of the judgment, in place of the sentence that reads:'the respondents had an alternative case, namely that even if these sales were not in the course of export, they were sales made in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and so were exempt under article 286(2).'the following.....
Judgment:
ORDER

ON REVIEW

(D/- 17-4-1958).

VIVIAN BOSE, J. :

24. This petition reveals that there is an accidental slip in our judgment dated 11-2-1958, which will have to be set right. Mr. H. J. Umrigar, who appeared for the Appellant in the appeals, waived notice and appeared without notice to represent the State of Mysore. He also agrees that there is a slip which will need correction.

25. Towards the end of our judgment we said that the respondents had an alternative case under Article 286(2). This was a mistake. Their alternative case was under Article 286(l)(a). The appellant, and not the respondents, had raised a contention about Article 286(2) but we expressed no opinion on it in our judgment and we express no opinion now.

26. Two of the matters that the petitioners (respondents) raised in the High Court are set out in Question No. 6. The first part of the question asks:

'In any event, whether the petitioner Company's sales do not fall under Article 286(l)(a) of the Constitution.'

The High Court said that no finding was necessary on this part of the question. Our remand should have directed the High Court to enquire into this instead of on the question under Article 286(2).

27. The second part of Question No. 6 is:

'Whether the sales fall under Article 286(2) as held by this Hon'ble Authority.'

The High Court considered this matter and held against the appellant before us that

'the sales in question are not affected by the provisions of Article 286(2) of the Constitution.'

There is therefore a finding on this point but not on the other. Our remand should therefore have been confined to Article 288(l)(a) and not to Article 286(2). We have not considered the position under Article 286(2).

28. Our order of 11-2-1958, will accordingly be amended as follows. In the third paragraph from the end of the judgment, in place of the sentence that reads:

'The respondents had an alternative case, namely that even if these sales were not in the course of export, they were sales made in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and so were exempt under Article 286(2).'

the following will be substituted:

'The respondents had an alternative case, namely, that even if these sales were not in the course of export, they were sales made outside the State of Mysore and so were exempt under Article 286(l)(a).'

29. The remand to the High Court is for final disposal in that Court.

30. Each side will bear its own costs in this court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //