Advertisements

FACTS OF CASE 

The case State of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala was heard by the Supreme Court of India on 9 April, 1957^..The second respondent in the appeal was a corporation that was formed in the State of Mysore and ran a prize competition known as the R. M. D. C. Cross-words through a weekly newspaper printed and distributed in Bangalore. The first respondent was its founder and managing director. 

This newspaper was widely read in the State of Bombay, where the responders established drop-off locations for entry forms and entry fees, hired local collectors, and circulated adverts in the paper inviting readers to compete. 

The Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax (Amendment) Act of 1952 was passed by the Bombay Legislature on November 20, 1952. It expanded the definition of “prize competition” in S. 2 (1) (d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competition Control and Tax Act of 1948 to include prize competitions conducted through newspapers printed and published outside the State and added a new section, S. 12A, levying a tax on the promoters. 

ISSUE 

The issue in the case State of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala was whether the amended Act and rules on application to such prize competitions were ultra-vires and violated the fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (g) and Art.301 of the Constitution. The main points of contention were: 

• Whether the Respondents’ prize competition was neither a lottery nor gambling as it was a competition in which skill, knowledge and judgment played. 
• Whether the impugned Act operated extra-territorially as it affected the trade or business of conducting prize competitions outside the State and was, therefore, beyond the competence of the State Legislature and invalid. 
• Whether the impugned Act offended against Art. 301 of the Constitution in a smuch as it imposed restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse between the States. 
• Whether the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act on the trade or business were not reasonable and violated Art 19 (1) (g)^. 

ARGUMENT 

The arguments presented in the case State of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala, 1957 were as follows: 

Appellant’s Submissions (State of Bombay): 

• The prize competitions conducted by the respondents were a lottery. 
• The contested Act’s application was not extra territorial. 
• • Under Entries 33, 34, and 62 of the State List, the provisions of the contested Act were recognized as legal and competent law. 
• No violation of the Constitution’s Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 301 has occurred because the respondents were not engaged in a trade or business. 

Respondent’s Submissions (R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala): 

• The respondents’ prize competition was neither a lottery nor gambling as it was a competition in which skill, knowledge and judgment played. 
• The contested Act, which affected the trade or business of holding prize competitions outside the State and functioned extraterritorially, was illegal because it was outside the purview of the State Legislature’s authority. 
• The impugned Act offended against Art. 301 of the Constitution inasmuch as it imposed restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse between the States^. 
• The restrictions imposed by the impugned Act on the trade or business were not reasonable and violated Art 19 (1) (g). 

JUDGEMENT 

The judgement in the case State of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 9 April, 1957. The court held that gambling or conducting the business of gambling is extra-commercium and hence not included within the meaning of ‘trade, commerce or intercourse’. Consequently, it is not protected by the fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19 (1) (g) or the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301 of the Constitution of India. The appeal against the Bombay judgment declaring the Bombay Act to be unconstitutional was brought in this court and was allowed^. 

References 

www.indianknoon 

www.casemine.com 

Written by Ziya Praveen an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin