Case Note & Summary
The case involved a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by an individual alleging violation of his property rights by the Central Bank of India Ltd. The petitioner, who held shares in the Bank, challenged the validity of a sale of those shares executed by the Bank to recover a debt. The petitioner had previously initiated multiple proceedings in the Bombay High Court, culminating in a suit filed in 1951, which was dismissed on grounds of limitation. The petitioner sought to quash the adverse orders and have the suit heard as undefended. The court examined the applicability of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, which protect property rights against state action but do not extend to violations by private individuals. The court concluded that the petitioner had misconceived his remedy, as the articles were not intended to address wrongful acts by individuals. The court dismissed the petition, stating that remedies for such grievances must be sought under ordinary law, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Property Rights - Infringement by Private Individuals - Maintainability of Petition - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1) - The court held that Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) protect against state action and do not cover violations by private individuals, necessitating remedies under ordinary law. The petitioner's claims were dismissed as misconceived. (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for infringement of property rights by private individuals.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) do not protect against violations by private individuals and that remedies must be sought under ordinary law.
Law Points
- Constitutional law
- property rights
- maintainability of petitions
- infringement by private individuals
- Article 19(1)(f)
- Article 31(1)
