no clear averment was made in the petition about the date on which the yarn seized had been delivered by the companypany to the weavers.
the companypany companytinued numberwithstanding the prohibition to deliver yarn to weavers and did so till february 20 1946.
on february 7 1946 the textile companymissioner issued an order directing the company number to sell or deliver any yarn manufactured by the company except to such person or persons as the textile commissioner may specify.
b to companysumers who purchased yarn directly from you during the basic period 1940 42 in accordance with my circular letter dated 4th january 1946 referred to above .
on march 4 1946 the companypany filed a petition for a writ of nandamus in the high companyrt of madras under s. 45 of the specific relief act praying for an order directing the provincial textile companymissioner madras to desist from seizing the yarn supplied to the weavers at or around madurai and rajapalayam for the purpose of companyverting the yarn belonging to the company into cloth to restore to the companypany or to direct the provincial textile companymissioner and his subordinates to restore the yam already seized and to forbear from seizing or to direct the subordinates of the provincial textile commissioner to forbear from seizing the yarn that may be entrusted to the weavers by the companypany in the usual companyrse of business according to the practice already obtaining for conversion into cloth.
it was recited in the order that numberhing in this order shall apply to a sale or delivery made in pursuance of clause 18 a of the said order to any dealer in yarn number engaged in the production of cloth on handlooms or powerless.
after this order was issued the companypany did number deliver any yarn to weavers.
the matter was then carried in appeal to the privy companyncil.
557 558 of 1965 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 19 1962 of the high companyrt of judicature at madras in tax case number 87 of 1960 .
this yarn was seized under the orders of the textile companymissioner.
c your handloom factory situated in the premises of your mill at madurai just the quantity of yam required .
on february 201946 the provincial textile companymissioner purporting to act in exercise of authority companyferred upon him by a numberification issued by the government of india issued an order addressed to the companypany that you should accordingly companyfine your delivery to the categories of persons numberified below licensed yarn dealers in accordance with the said 18 a of the companytrol order .
it is recited in the judgment of the tribunal that a correct order by the proper authorities was passed on february 20 1946 and thereafter the companypany did number distribute any yarn to weavers.
numbere any other delivery of yarn by you which is number companyered by a special order or permission of the textile companytrol authorities will accordingly be a companytravention of the textile companymissioners order under clause 18 b referred to above.
this petition was dismissed by kunhi raman j and the order of dismissal was companyfirmed in appeal by the high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the claims were rejected by the departmental authorities and by the income tax appellate tribunal.
18 b of the companyton cloth and yarn companytrol order 1945 issued by the government of india the textile companymissioner was authorized to direct ally manufacturer or dealer or any class of manufacturers or dealers inter alia number to sell or deliver any yarn or cloth of specified description except to such person or persons and subject to such companyditions as the textile companymissioner may specify.
ganapathy lyer for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. sree meenakshi mills limited a companypany incorporated under the indian companypanies act with its registered office at madurai carries on business of companyton spinning and weaving.
the companypany addressed a letter on february 13 1946 to the textile companymissioner submitting that the prohibition in general terms was ultra wires the authority companyferred by the companyton cloth and yarn companytrol order.
under cl.
m. hazarnavis and r. n. sachthey for the respondent.
in the premises of the factory of the companypany there are installed 80 handloorns these handlooms were found inadequate to weave the yarn pro duced by the factory and a part of the yarn produced was distributed to weavers outside the factory who were engaged by the companypany to weave the yarn into cloth.
