LAWS(BOM)-1964-10-5

AMICHAND VALANJI Vs. G B KOTAK

Decided On October 06, 1964
AMICHAND VALANJI Appellant
V/S
G.B.KOTAK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(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 and 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 in substance now confined to the two grounds. Firstly, it is contend that the rule made are in excess of the rule making power to the central Government, and secondly that at any rate the rules contravene the fundament rights conferred on the petitioners under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution of the India. The other contentions which have been raised by the petitioner satiated before us. But Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners stated before us that he did d not advance any arguments on those contentions because the matter stood concluded by the recent decision the their Lordship of the supreme court in Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of punjab AIR 1964 SC 381. Mr. Mehta, however stated that the petitioners marries these contentions I the supreme court if so advised.