P D SHAMDASANI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1951-12-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 21,1951

P.D.SHAMDASANI Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHARANJIT LAL CHOWDHARY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

Y P GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1975-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR SINGH VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-1993-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
USHABEN NAVINCHANDRA TRIVEDI VS. BHAGYALAXMI CHITRA MANDIR [LAWS(GJH)-1976-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
YASMEEN MEGHA MATHUR VS. RAMESH CHANDRA MATHUR [LAWS(ALL)-1994-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
SIHNU VS. LACHMAN DASS [LAWS(HPH)-1952-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
PUTHOTA CHINNAMMA VS. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-1963-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. BHARAT HYDRO POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(GAU)-1998-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
R SUBHADRA DEVI VS. ANDHRA GIRLS COLLEGE [LAWS(APH)-1971-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AGENCIES VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1994-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAM TOSSA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANPROSAD JHUNJHUNWALLA VS. INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1953-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
TEJRAJ CHHOGALAL GANDHI VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [LAWS(MPH)-1957-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM AL AR ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR VS. KALEESWARAR MILLS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1956-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
BACHOMAL SADOROMAL VS. MILKIRAM LAHRUMAL [LAWS(MPH)-1974-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAYALAXMI TRIPATHY VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF W W HOSTEL [LAWS(ORI)-1992-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SNJEEVANI PROJECTSP LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2005-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
ARINDAM BASU VS. AMAL KUMAR BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2006-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU PAZHANKUDI MAKKAL SANGAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1997-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR K PALICHA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1997-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN GULAB GAVLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1999-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANATHI FINANCE LEASING AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2000-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHWAR HYDEL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CHITROOPA PALIT [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA VERMA VS. SHIV NARAIN VERMA [LAWS(SC)-1955-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JABALPUR STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE OF MAHARASHTRA STATE OF RAJASTHAN UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIVAKANT SHUKLA:V K S CHAUDHARY:ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE:SATYA SHARMA:N K GANPAIAH:SUBHAS:MILAP CHAND KANUNGO:SHRI RAM DHAN:DR REKHA AWASTHI [LAWS(SC)-1976-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
K K BIRLA VS. PRESS COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1975-9-23] [REFERRED BENETT' COLEMAN AND CO. LTD. AND OTHERS CASE (AIR 1973 S.C. 106). (II) "ALICE LEE GROSIEAN ]
MAZDOOR SABHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1992-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
BAPU LAL MANSUKH LAL THAKKAR MANSUKH LAL THAKKAR CENTRAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
MULLA ALIAS KALU ALIAS TAHIR VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-148] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA PAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR DHONDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN SON OF BHAYYAJI KALMEGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-12-97] [REFERRED TO]
B G DESHMUKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-228] [REFERRED TO]
PANCH GUJAR GAUR BRAHMANS VS. AMARSINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
SABEEHA FAIKAGE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
MUNU MURA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2013-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2001-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
Karnataka Bank Limited VS. Smt. Rekha Rao and others [LAWS(KAR)-2001-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
INDU JAIN VS. FORBES INCORPORATED [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-338] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAJ VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1979-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHEN LAL VS. BABOO RAJ [LAWS(J&K)-1977-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
A.P. SIMON VS. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-1953-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAMMAD HANIF VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1960-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAPTAKOS, BRETT AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. THE BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND THREE OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1987-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JITENDRA GUPTA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
OPERATION MANAGER AUTO LOAN CONSUMER SERVICE DEPT VS. PRAVEEN KHAITAN & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2012-3-143] [REFERRED]
ICICI BANK LTD. VS. KAPIL PURI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
MISCELLANEOUS MAZDOOR SABHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1992-1-59] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Patanjali Sastri, C. J. - (1.)This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (f) and Art. 31 (1) alleged to have been violated by the Central Bank of India Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies, Act. 1882, and having its registered office at Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank").
(2.)It appears that the petitioner held five shares in the share capital of the Bank which sold those shares to a third party in purported exercise of its right of lien for recovery of a debt due to it from the petitioner, and the transfer was registered in the books of the Bank in the year 1937. The petitioner thereupon instituted a series of proceedings in the High Court at Bombay on its original and appellate jurisdiction challenging the validity of the said sale and transfer. The latest of these proceedings was a suit filed against the Bank in 1951 wherein the plaint was rejected on 2-3-1951 under O. 7, R. 11 (d), Civil P. C as barred by limitation. The petitioner now prays that all the adverse orders made in the previous proceedings be quashed and the said High Court be directed to have "the above suit set down to be heard as undefended and pronounce Judgment against the respondent or to make such orders as it thinks fit in relation to the said suit." It may be mentioned here that though the aforesaid order rejecting the petitioner's plaint was appealable, the petitioner did not prefer an appeal on the somewhat extraordinary ground that "the appeal if filed could not be heard by the judges of the said Court as all of them were disqualified from hearing such appeal" either because of their interest in the Bank or because of their prejudice against him.
(3.)We are of opinion that the petitioner has misconceived his remedy and the petition must fail on a preliminary ground. Neither Art. 19(1) (f) nor Art. 31 (1) on its true construction was intended to prevent wrongful individual acts or to provide protection against merely private conduct. Article 19 deals with the "right to freedom" and by cl. (1) assures to the citizen certain fundamental freedoms including the freedom "to acquire, hold and dispose of property' subject to the power of the State to impose restrictions on the exercise of such rights to the extent and on the grounds mentioned in Cls. (2) to (6). The language and structure of Art. 19 and its setting in Part III of the Constitution clearly show that the article was intended to protect those freedoms against State action other than in the legitimate exercise of its power to regulate private rights in the public interest. Violation of rights of property by individuals is not within the purview of the article.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.