R.M.D CHAMARBAUGWALA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA  AIR 1957 SC 628

Citation	1957 SC 628
Date of Judgment	9.4.1957
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1956.
Application	R.M.D Chamarbaugwalla
Respondent	The Union Of India
Bench	T.L.V Aiyyar, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Bhuvneshwar P Sinha, S.K Das, P.B Ganjendragadkar
Referred	Prize Competition Act, Doctrine of severability.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The legislature of various states passed a resolution under Article 252 (1) of the constitution of India and the Parliament enacted The Prize Competition Act (42 of 1955).
2. On April 1^st 1956 The Prize Competition Act ( 1955) was brought into force by the Central Government.
3. The petitioners are engaged in the activities of promoting and conducting Prize Competition in various states in India.
4. The writ petition has been filed in view of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity of certain provisions of the above mentioned act and rule framed under it.
5.  The petition was heard along with Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1956, wherein the validity of Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competition Control And Tax Act, 1948 was impugned on grounds some of which are raised in the present petition. 

ISSUES  

1. Whether, in the definition of ‘prize competition’ in sec 2 (d), the act applies to competition which involves sufficient skill and is not in the nature of gambling?
2. Whether the provision of sec.4 and sec.5 and Rule 11 and Rule 12 which are, ex concessi void, as regard such competitions, can on the principle of severability be enforced against competition which are in the nature of gambling?

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner argues that Section 2 (d) of the Prize Competition Act, 1955 was wide and it covers all the competitions which are related to gambling nature and those also whose success depends on sufficient degree of skills.

Further, the respondent is imposing restriction on the petitioner hence it is violating Article 19 (6) of the fundamental right of the petitioner.

It was argued by the petitioner that the invalid part of the Prize Competition Act, 1955 cannot be said as the valid part it would also be void as they are connected.

Further, Respondent argued that ‘prize competition’ as defined in sec 2 (d) of the act, it properly means and includes only competition in which success does not depend to any degree of skills and the gambling activities are not any type of trade or business.

The petitioner cannot file the petition under Article 32 as there is no violence under Article 19 (1) (g) and petitioner are not entitled to take the protection of Article 19 (6).

The respondents argued that even if some part of Prize Competition Act is invalid that should be removed but the valid part should be stay as valid and the whole of the act should not be called as void. 

JUDGEMENT

In the civil appeal no. 134 of 1956 heard along with the petition, it was held that ‘trade and commerce’ as protected by Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 301 of the constitution are only such activities that can be regarded as lawfull trading activities and gambling is not trade in any ways it is just getting extra commercium, and thus it does not fall under those articles.

The difference between the two classes of competition is as clear and cut as between commercial and wagering contracts.

It is difficult deciding if the given competitions should fall under the category or not after the facts but afterward its true character is determined it should fall under one category or the other category.

The cancelled provision are to be assumed that they will be apply by virtue of the definition under sec. 2 (d) to all kinds of competition held, are severable in their application to competition in which success does not depend on any skill. In the end, both the argumentation and dispute found against the petitioner, and the petition must be dismissed with costs. There will be only one set of counsel’s fee.

The petitions with no amounting to merits were thereby dismissed.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://lawplanet.in

https://www.lawinsider.in

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com

This case analysis is written by Bhaavya Mishra of Vikramajit Singh Sanatan Dharma College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.