There is no doubt that by the order of extern- 523 ment the right of the petitioner to freedom of movement throughout the territory of India is abridged. The crucial question is: Did the parties intend to reduce their bargain regarding the deposit of the title deeds to the form of a document ? Even if the resolution passed by the directors is held to be in technical breach of the section, as it has caused no injury to anybody, the resolution cannot be held to be void.
It is against this background that we must consider how the constitution-makers in India dealt with and gave final shape to the provisions, on an analogous subject in the Indian Constitution. (5) Nothing in subclauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any exist- ing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any Law Firm High Court Chandigarh imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub- clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
In such a situation it is difficult to hold that the reso- lution passed by the directors has contravened the provi- sions of section 105-C and has caused any detriment or injury either to the company or to the shareholders. 2 of 2015) in the light of observation, as above. Two interpretations of the clause are put before the Court. In the Draft Constitution, article 15 (which now stands as article 21) was apparently framed on the basis of the 5th and 14th Amendments in the American Constitution.
The majority judgments of the Patna and the Bombay Lawyers Chandigarh High Court Courts, although the impugned Acts of the State Legislatures before them were materially different on cer- tain important points, have given clause (5) of article 19 the latter meaning. It is submitted that in deciding whether the restrictions, on the exercise of the right are reasonable, the Court has to decide not only on the extent and nature of the restric- tions on the exercise of the right but also as to whether the conditions under which the right is restricted are reasonable.
2998 of 2015 in CS No. The other interpretation is that while the Consti- tution permits a law laying down reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights mentioned in sub-clause 19 (1) (d), the reasonableness has to be of the law also. To put it in other words, the only justiciable issue to be decided by the Court is whether the restrictions imposed by the legislation on the exercise of the right are reasonable.
nAccordingly the appeal is allowed. It is argued that grammatically understood the only Famous Chandigarh Advocates question before the Court is whether the impugned legislation imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. It was open to a company not to adopt article 42 and thus fetter the discretion of the directors even in the case of the issue of new capital. If, on the other hand, its proper construction and the surrounding circumstances lead to the conclusion that the parties did not intend to do so, then, there being no express bargain, the contract to create the mortgage arises by implication of the law from the deposit itself with the requisite intention, and the docu- ment, being merely evidential does not require registration nThe assessee thereupon preferred a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
The rest of the provision of clause (5) is not material and neither side relies on it. That clause provides as follows:–“19. If, therefore; profits can be allocated to the manufacture of oil in Raichur it seems to me clear that the manufacturing activity will be a part of the assessee’s business in an Indian State. ” It is clear that the clause permits imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by sub- clause (d)in the interests of the general public.
The High Court is requested to decide the application (GA No. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the 9th December, 1947, accepted the appeal on the ground, amongst others, that the return filed on the 7th May, 1945, was a proper return and should have been treated as such section 42 (3) a part of the Excess Profits Tax Act for assessing the profits of an assessee. The article was worded as follows: The impugned order, passed by the Lawyers Chandigarh High Court Court is set aside.
If those restrictions on the exercise of the right are reasonable, the Court has not to consider whether the law imposing the restrictions is rea- sonable. Under the law as it existed prior to 1936, if a company incorpo- rated in its Articles of Association article 42 mentioned in the schedule to the Indian Companies Act, then in the case of issue of new shares the directors’ discretion was cur- tailed inasmuch as they were bound to offer these shares in the first instance in proportion as nearly as the circum- stances admitted to the amount of the existing shares to the existing shareholders but in all other cases their discre- tion remained unfettered.
The only question is whether the limits of permissible legislation under clause (5) are exceeded. If so, the document requires registration.