Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the alleged instant materialisation of gold articles and ornaments could amount to "making", "manufacturing", "preparing" or "processing" within section 11 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, whether section 16 of that Act required a declaration in respect of such articles, and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel action for alleged violations.
Analysis: The expressions "make", "manufacture", "prepare" and "process" were held to bear their ordinary and popular meaning in the context of a statute directed at commercial activity in gold. Instant materialisation of articles from air, without the operations ordinarily associated with manufacture or preparation, did not fall within section 11. Section 16 was also inapplicable because the articles were not acquired for ownership, possession, custody or control in the manner contemplated by that provision, but were said to be immediately gifted away. The allegations regarding trust ownership and possession were unsupported and did not establish any link sufficient to attribute contravention to the person against whom relief was sought.
Conclusion: No violation of sections 11 or 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was made out, and no basis existed for issuing a mandamus to initiate action.