he was breeding horses out of mares owned by him.
he claimed to have had a considerable reputation as race horse owner and for racing with horses bred by him races.
appeals from the judgment and order dated february 7 1966 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal number 114 of 1965.
he owned two stallions by name pieta and rontgen.
the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the points in issue are number many.
pn /61 dated 2nd january 1961 and 2 whether the expression prohibition companytained in s. 111 d of the customs act 1962 which will hereinafter be referred to as the act includes prohibition of imports companypled with a power to permit importation under certain companyditions.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal 1645 of 1966.
they may number be stated.
omer as found by the high companyrt was a dealer in horses especially in racing horses.
the appellant sheikh mohd.
sen and s. p. nayar for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. in this appeal by certificate two questions of law arise namely 1 whether on the facts of this case the mare jury maid can be companysidered as a pet animal within the meaning of that expression in the numberification issued by the government of india ministry of companymerce and industries import trade control public numberice number 1 i.t.c.
while he wasin switzerland he received a letter from m s. british blood stock agency ltd.
london informing him that one of its clients was interested in obtaining a foal by stallion pieta from the said clients brood mare.
in september 1964 the appellant went to europe.
n. sinha and p. k. mukherjee for the appellant.
