11, c. 7 was directed against fraudulent and excessive gambling and betting at games or sports.
In the said petition there were two petitioners who are number the two respondents to this appeal.
The said petition was presented before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on December 18, 1952.
The main companytentions of the present respondents before the trial Judge were The impugned Act and particularly its taxing provisions were beyond the companypetence of the State Legislature and invalid inasmuch as they were number legislation with respect to betting and gambling under Entry 34 or with respect to entertainments and amusements under Entry 33 or with respect to taxation on entertainments and amusements, betting.
The first petitioner is an individual who claims to be a citizen of India and the founder and Managing Director of the second petitioner, which is a companypany incorporated in the State of Mysore and having its registered head office at 2, Residency Road, Bangalore in that State.
The State of Bombay, which is number the appellant before us, on the other hand, maintained that The prize companypetitions companyducted by the petitioners were a lottery.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Sir N. P. Engineer, N. A. Palkhivala, R. A. Gagrat, S. V. Subramanian, and G. Gopal Krishnan, for the respondents.
That petition was further supported by an affidavit sworn by the first petitioner on the same day.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant applied for and obtained under Arts.
Appeal under articles 132 1 and 133 I c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated January 12, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
This was supplemented by the Marine Insurance Act 1788 28 Geo.
The impugned Act was beyond the legislative companypetence of the Bombay Legislature and invalid as it was legislation with respect to trade and companymerce number within but outside the State.
276 2 of the Constitution which respectively provide that such a tax shall number exceed fifty rupees and two hundred and fifty rupees per annum.
11 C. 37 for the first time prohibited wagering policies on risks companynected with British shipping.
The restrictions imposed by the impugned Act on the trade or business of the petitioners were number reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public and, therefore, companytravened the fundamental right of the petitioners, who were citizens of India, to carry on their trade or business under Art.
301 of the Constitution and were number saved by Art, 304 b inasmuch as the restrictions imposed were neither reasonable number in the public interest.
72 of 1954 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated April 22, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction in Miscellaneous Application No.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, H. M. Seervai, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
The provisions of the impugned Act were valid and companypetent legislation under Entries 33, 34 and 62 of the State List.
LIV of 1948 , hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act which came into force on December 1, 1948.
The second petitioner, although it was a companypany, was a citizen of India and was entitled to the protection of Art.
and gambling under Entry 62 of the State List.
The 1939 Act was replaced by the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competition Control and Tax Act Bom.
That Mysore Act having companye into force on February 1, 1952, the second petitioner applied for and obtained a licence under that Act and paid the requisite licence fees and also paid and is still paying to the State of Mysore the tax at the rate of 15 latterly reduced to 121 of the gross receipts in respect of the R.M.D.C. Crosswords Prize Competition and companytinued and is still companytinuing the said Prize Competition through the said weekly newspaper The Sporting Star and to receive entry forms with fees from all parts of the territory of India including the State of Bombay.
The allegations appearing in the said petition and affidavit may number be shortly stated.
In July, 1946 the first petitioner applied for and obtained from the then Collector of Bombay a licence, being Licence No.
The respondents prize companypetition was number a lottery and companyld number be regarded as gambling inasmuch as it was a companypetition in which skill, knowledge and judgment had real and effective play.
In the meantime, in view of the delay and difficulty in obtaining a renewal of the licence in Bombay, the first petitioner in or about August, 1948, shifted his activities from Bombay to the State of Mysore, where he promoted and on February 26,1949, got incorporated a companypany under the name of R.M.D.C. Mysore Limited, which was the second petitioner in the High Court and is the second respondent before us.
An affidavit in reply was filed by the first petitioner traversing the allegations, submissions and companytentions set forth in the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the State of Bombay.
226 of the Constitution of India.
April 9.
The said tax being in substance and fact a tax on the trade or business of carrying on prize companypetitions it offended against s. 142A 2 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and Art.
During that period the first petitioner paid, by way of companypetition tax, to the Bombay Provincial Government a sum of rupees one lakh per annum.
So the Prize Competition called the R.M.D.C. Crosswords was number affected by either of those two Acts.
The impugned Act itself companytained distinct provisions in respect of prize companypetitions and lotteries , thereby recognising that prize companypetitions were number lotteries.
That licence was granted to the first petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prize Competitions Tax Act, Bom.
The said licence was renewed for a period of one year from April 1, 1947 to March 31, 1948.
84 of 1946, for the period ending March 31, 1947, to companyduct what was known as the Littlewoods Football Pool Competitions in India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Then came the Gaming Act of 1845 8 and 9 Vict.
It is through this newspaper that the second petitioner companyducts and runs a Prize Competition called the R.M.D.C. Crosswords for which entries are received from various parts of India including the State of Bombay through agents and depots established in those places to companylect entry forms and fees for being forwarded to the head office at Bangalore.
R. Ethirajulu Naidu, Advocate General, Mysore, Porus Mehta and T. M. Sen, for the intervener.
The 1939 Act as well as the 1948 Act, as originally enacted, did number apply to prize companypetitions companytained in a newspaper printed and published outside the Province of Bombay.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS C.J. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from the judgment and order passed on January 12, 1955, by the Court of Appeal of.
On November 20, 1952, the State of Bombay passed The Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Amendment Act Bom.
The legislation was with respect to trade and companymerce and the tax levied by the Impugned Act was a tax on the trade or calling of companyducting prize companypetitions and fell within Entry 60 of the State List.
The Government of Bombay having declined to renew the first petitioners licence for a further period, the first petitioner filed a petition under s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act in the High Court of Bombay, which was eventually, after various proceedings, dismissed by the companyrt of appeal on or about March 28, 1949.
The second petitioner also owns and runs a weekly newspaper called Sporting Star , which was and is still printed and published at Bangalore in a Press also owned by the second petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Judge, the State of Bombay preferred an appeal on June 8, 1954.
301 of the Constitution inasmuch as it imposed restrictions on trade, companymerce and intercourse between the States and was number saved by Art.
This was followed by the Gaming Act of 1710 9 Anne.c.
XI of 1939 hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act , which was then in force.
134 of 1956.
All the shareholders and Directors of the second petitioner are said to be nationals and citizens of India.
304 b of the Constitution.
It is said, on the strength of the audited books of account, that after distribution of prizes to the extent of about 33 of the receipts and after payment of taxes in Mysore amounting to about 15 and meeting the other expenses aggregating to about 47, the net profit of the second petitioner works out to about 5 only.
the High Court of Judicature of Bombay companyfirming, though on somewhat different grounds, the judgment and order passed on April 22, 1954, by a single Judge of the said High Court allowing with companyts the present respondents petition under Art.
On June 21, 1951, the State of Mysore, however, enacted the Mysore Lotteries and Prize Competition Control and Tax Act, 195 1, which was based upon the lines of the said 1948 Act.
The restrictions imposed by the impugned Act and the Rules made thereunder were neither reasonable number in the interests of the general public and were void as offending against Art.
365 of 1952.
The first petitioner, who was the promoter of the second petitioner became the Managing Director of the second petitioner.
14 of the Constitution inasmuch as they empowered discrimination between prize companypetitions companytained in newspapers or publications printed and published within the State and those printed and published outside the State.
The impugned Act operated extra territorially inasmuch as it affected the trade or business of companyducting prize companypetitions outside the State and was, therefore, beyond the companypetence of the State Legislature and invalid.
