PRAKASH NARAIN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions (viz. C. W. 1858 of 1981; C. W. 1113 of 1981,c. W. 1190 of 1982, and C. W. 2568 of 1982) filed by thepetitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiahave been heard together and are being disposed of by acommon judgment as all the petitions raise identical questionof law The facts as such are not in dispute. "

( 2 ) TO understand the controversy it will be pertinent tobriefly notice some facts. As common questions of lawalone have been raised, we will only set out the facts incivil Writ No. 1858 of 1982.

( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a company registered under the companies Act, 1913 and is an existing company within themeaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 isa director and shareholder of the first petitioner. A composite Spinning and Weaving Mill is owned and run by thefirst petitioner in which yarn is spun and ultimately converted into fabrics of different types. According to the petitioners, yarn is obtained at an intermediary stage as an intermediary. product for use in its composite mill in which thesaid cotton yarn is ultimately utilised for making fabrics ofdifferent types. Cotton yarn, as such attr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document