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

2005 Supreme(Del) 660

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HARSH KHURANA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Lovkesh Sawhney, RAHUL KAUSHIK, RITESH KUMAR, SIDARTH MRIDUL, TANUJ KHURANA

B. C. PATEL, CJ.

( 1 ) THE present case is a classic example of how the petitioner has managed to ensure that the criminal proceedings initiated against him do not even take off much less achieve any final adjudicatory stage.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be a whole-sale dealer of mild steel tubes carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Banarsi Dass and Co. In terms of a notification issued by respondent No. 1 / Union of India bearing No. GSR 374 (E) dated 08. 07. 1978 called the Mild Steel Tubes (Excluding Seamless Tubes and Tubes According to A. P. I. Specifications) (Quality Control) Order, 1978 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Order ) in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, the Act ), the following provision was made :

NO person shall by himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture or store for sale, sell or distribute any mild steel tubes having wall thickness less than the wall thickness stipulated for light class in the specified standards covered by this Order and that it would be with ISI certification mark and proved that the thickness of zinc coating on the galvani






















































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