That Writ Petition was delinked from the other cases since the pleadings therein are number companyplete.
Devadhar, Aruneshwar Gupta, Brij Bhushan, S.P. Mangla, Rajesh Gupta, J.N. Aggarwal, P.D. Sharma, P.K. Mukherjee, S. Pundir, N.D. Garg, P.K. Aggarwal, V.K. Varma, S. Sriniasan, Sushil Kumar Jain, M.K.D. Namboodiry, R.C. Pathak, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mrs. Shobha Dixit.
N. Bajoria, Soli J. Sorabji, Anil B. Dewan, Gobind Dass, A.K. Sen, I.R. Gupta, M.M. Abdul Khadar, S.K. Bagaria, Kamal Persuram Puria, A.M. Shah, V.N. Deshpande, E.C. Agarwala, R. Sathish, Vijaya Pandita, Prakash Mittal, Madan Sharma, Ravinder Narain, O.C. Mathur, J.B. Dadachanji, Talat Ansari, D.N. Mishra, Harish Salve, Miss Rainuwalia, Ashok Gupta, P.H. Parekh, D.K. Chhaya, Miss Nisha Srivastava, JP.
That Writ Petition and all other cases involving import of companyper scrap may be listed for hearing at an early date.A.T.M. Sampath, K.J. John, Shri Narain, J.N. Aggarwal, B.P. Maheshwari, Miss Halida Khatun, R.S. Suri, S.K. Dholakia, Altaf Ahmad, G.D. Rawal, Shyam Moorjani Kailash Vasdev, C.S. Vaidyanathan.
D.D. Sharma, B. Parthasarthi, S.S. Shroff, Mrs. Pallavi Shiraf, D.P. Mohanty.
S.A. Shroff, Subhash Parekh, A.K. Sanghi.
S.N. Parekh, Vijay Pandita, Madan Sharma, R.D. Upadhya, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Janendra Lal, R. Agarwala, Miss V. Menon, A.K. Goel, K. Dileep and M.A. Feroz, for the Appellants Petitioners.
Parasaran, Solictor General, M.K. Banerjee, Additional Solictor General, A.K. Ganguli, K. Swamy, R.N. Poddar, C.V. Subbarao, Suraj Udai Singh and Miss Halida Khatun for the Respondents.
Anil B. Dewan, Abhay M. Shah, V.N. Deshpande, E.C. Aggarwala and V.K. Pandita for the Interveners Indravandan Gokuldas Mehta .
From the Judgment and Order dated 19th October, 1982 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, CJ This is a group of Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arising out of a judgment dated October 19, 1982 delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in a batch of Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Secondly, two Notifications, Nos.
Notification No.
96 and 97, were issued simultaneously, one for companyper scrap and the other for other than companyper waste and scrap.
Thirdly, the companytemporaneous understanding of those who framed and issued the exemption Notifications has always been that the expression brass scrap is distinct from the expression companyper scrap for determining the application of those Notifications, For example, each of the two Notifications, No.
Waste and scrap are by products of the process of manufacture and are inevitable incidental to the manufacturing process.
338 349 of 1983 etc etc.
97 on which the appellants rely should, therefore, be so interpreted as to avid any companyflict between the two Notifications.
2684, 2685, 2686, 1687, 2688, 2724, 2725, 2507, 2508, 2509 and 1432 of 1981.
The intrinsic evidence furnished by the two Notifications points to the companyclusion that they relate to two separate types of scrap.
403 dated August 2, 1976 and No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
