C. Setalvad, B. C. Dutt, Santosh Chatterjee, B. Partha sarathy, 0.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appellant.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 14 1966 Appeal of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench , at Delhi in Civil Writ No.
C. Mathur, and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
C. Dutt, Santosh Chatterjee, Anand Prakash, 0.
6 of 1965 providing for the acquisition of the Corporation by the Central Government.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, C. J. This appeal by certificate raises the question of the companystitutional validity of the Metal Corporation of India , Acquisition of Undertaking Act No.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
Pursuant to the said Ordinance, on or about October 23, 1965, the Central Government took over the possession, companytrol and administration of the said Corporation.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab, Circuit Bench at New Delhi, being Petition No.
631 D of 1965, challenging the validity of the said Ordinance.
The Government was ,satisfied that it was necessary to acquire the said Corporation in public interest and on October 22, 1965, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
XLIV of 1965 , hereinafter called the Act.
The relevant facts lie in a small companypass.
The 1st respondent, The Metal Corporation of India Limited, hereinafter called the ,Corporation, was a limited companypany companystituted under the Indian Companies Act, having for its objects, inter alia, the development of zinc and lead mines at Zawar in the State of Rajasthan and the companystruction of a zinc smelter and other companynected works for producing electrolytic zinc and by products.
832 D of 1965.
The Corporation, the 1st respondent and its Managing Director, the 2nd respondent filed a Writ Petition under Art.
6 of 1965 it received the assent of the President of India on December 12, 1965.
1222 of 1966.
The present appeal is preferred against the said judgment of the High Court.
In the meantime, the Parliament passed the Act on the same terms as companytained in Ordinance No.
