SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(Bom) 64

VASANTI A.NAIK, Y.S.TAMBE
Amichand Valanji and Ors – Appellant
Versus
G. B. Kotak – Respondent


judgment

Tambe, J.

(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, wherein the vires of the Gold Control Rules, contained in part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules, have been challenged. In the prayer clauses of the petition no doubt, validity of the entire rule were not challenged but only some of the rule were not mentioned. But the arguments advanced before us the were in respect of rules in general. If would not therefore be necessary to consider each rule separately.

(2) The two petitioners before us are dealers in gold. They profess and parties Jain religion. The two petitioners carry onto business in the name and style of ""Messrs. Chandkumar Amichand Co"". The principal business of the petitioner is in bullion. They buy and sell gold incourse of their business. In their petition they say that the business carried on by the them is on a vast scale. Eleven persons are employed by them in the firm and the annual salary to the Rs. 20,000. The firm is also a registered dealer for the purpose of the sale - tax and the petitioners claim that he sales - tax paid by them in S.Y. 2018 amounted to Rs. 2,56, 395,72 nP.

(3) The challenge made by the petitioners is






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top