https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108258 Article 226 writ jurisdiction was considered an unsuitable route for obtaining a declaration that a business did not fall within the definitions in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or for restraining enforcement authorities from acting. The court noted that such relief would depend on disputed facts about the nature of the petitioners' activities and whether the statutory provisions were attracted. It declined to grant a declaration in rem in favour of private parties in writ proceedings and held that the authorities could proceed according to law, with the petitioners free to raise their defences in any proceedings initiated against them. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:55:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108258 Article 226 writ jurisdiction was considered an unsuitable route for obtaining a declaration that a business did not fall within the definitions in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 or for restraining enforcement authorities from acting. The court noted that such relief would depend on disputed facts about the nature of the petitioners' activities and whether the statutory provisions were attracted. It declined to grant a declaration in rem in favour of private parties in writ proceedings and held that the authorities could proceed according to law, with the petitioners free to raise their defences in any proceedings initiated against them. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108258