REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SUDARSHAN FINANCE CORPORATION Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PHALEN V.COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA [REFERRED TO]
TENNANT V. THE UNION BANK OF CANADA [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC PROVINCE [REFERRED TO]
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V. BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [REFERRED TO]
DOUGLAS V.COMMONWEALTH KENTUCKY [REFERRED TO]
MAYAVARAM FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY- GENERAL OF ALBERTA V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR V. BANK OF COMMERCE,KHULNA [REFERRED TO]
P.K. ACHUTHAN V. STATE BANK TRAVANCORE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. R M D CHI MARBAUGWALA ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MYSORE INTERVENER [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA KALIPADA DEB LAKSHMAN SHRIPATI LTPURE ALIAS LAKSHMAN SHRI PATI IMPORE A B CHOUDHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATIABARI TEA CO LIMITED KHAYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED H P BARUA HASIMARA TEA COMPANY LIMITED MOABUND TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORT RAJASTHAN LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:DESSAI AND PARBUTTIA TEA CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. H SANJEEVIAH [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RAIPUR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SECOND GIFT TAX OFFICER MANGALORE VS. D H NAZARETH [REFERRED TO]
G K KRISHNAN A SUBRAMANYAM SIVA TOURISTS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU:GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU:STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
A B ABDUL KADIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
CHOCKANATHAN CHIT FUND AND FINANCE P VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. R.M.D.CHAMARBAUGWALIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition and the other writ petition (Misc. Petition No. 35 of 1976)under Article 226 o the Constitution challenge the validity of the M. P. Dhan parichalan Skeem (Pratishedh) Adhiniyam, 1975 (Act No. 19 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of want of legislative competence in the State Legislature, as also for vagueness and arbitrariness and as a colourable piece of legislation and fraud on the Constitution, and further as violative of the fundamental right under Article 31 of the constitution. During the course of the final hearing of these petitions, leave was sought to amend them. It was granted as the learned Advocate-General had no objection. By the amendment, the Act is further challenged as in contravention of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution.

(2.) SECTION 3 of the Act reads thus:--

(3.) SECTION 4 makes contravention of the provisions of Section 3, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/-, or with both. Section 5 lays down penalty for other offences in connection with money circulation schemes:--

Click here to view full judgment.

SUDARSHAN FINANCE CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF MADH PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address