1949 (7) TMI 6 - Other - Indian Laws

Court interprets 'deliver' broadly in yarn seizure case under Control Order; Specific Relief Act application dismissed.

The court upheld the validity of the respondent's seizure of yarn under Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Control Order, interpreting 'deliver' broadly to include ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the seizure of yarn under Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945.2. Maintainability of the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Seizure of Yarn under Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1945:The primary issue was whether the delivery of yarn to outside handloom weavers by the appellant fell within the scope of Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Control Order. The appellant, a limited liability company engaged in cotton-spinning and weaving, argued that the delivery of yarn to outside weavers was a bailment and not a sale, thus not falling under the purview of the Control Order. The respondent, the Provincial Textile Commissioner, contended that the delivery of yarn to outside weavers violated the Control Order, leading to the seizure of the yarn.The court noted that the term 'deliver' in Clause 18B(1)(b) was not explicitly defined in the Control Order. In the absence of a specific definition, the term must be understood in its ordinary sense, which includes the handing over of possession to a bailee. The court rejected the appellant's argument that 'deliver' should be interpreted as passing of property or transfer of title. The court emphasized that the policy underlying Clause 18B was to secure proper distribution of cloth or yarn, necessitating a broad interpretation of 'deliver' to include any handing over of possession, including to a bailee.The court concluded that the delivery of yarn to outside weavers constituted a delivery within the meaning of Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Control Order. Therefore, the respondent's seizure of the yarn was valid as it was in compliance with the Control Order aimed at regulating the distribution of yarn.2. Maintainability of the Application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877:The second issue was whether the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable. Section 45 restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court to acts done or to be done within the local limits of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The appellant sought directions for the respondent to desist from seizing yarn supplied to weavers and to restore the already seized yarn. However, the seizures occurred outside the local limits of the Madras High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction, specifically in Madura and Rajapalayam.The court referred to the precedent set in 'Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, Madras v. Venkatanarasimham,' which held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 45 is confined to acts within its local limits. Since the relief sought by the appellant pertained to acts outside these limits, the application was deemed incompetent.The court also noted that even if an order was made in favor of the appellant, it could be frustrated by a positive direction under Clause 18B(1)(a) of the Control Order, further rendering the application under Section 45 ineffective.Conclusion:The court affirmed the validity of the respondent's seizure of yarn under Clause 18B(1)(b) of the Control Order, interpreting 'deliver' in its broad, ordinary sense to include delivery to a bailee. Additionally, the court held that the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable as it sought relief for acts outside the jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.