https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171749 The Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was not invalid for want of prior Central Government concurrence because it required dealers to display prices fixed by themselves and did not itself control statutory prices or rates. Rule 184(b) special bail restrictions did not apply to a breach of that Order, as the notification covered Rule 114 and a contravention of an order made under the rule was not the same as contravention of the rule itself. The High Court's powers under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained available, since the constitution of a Special Tribunal to try offences did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude independent bail jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:30:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171749 The Price Marking and Display Order, 1975 was not invalid for want of prior Central Government concurrence because it required dealers to display prices fixed by themselves and did not itself control statutory prices or rates. Rule 184(b) special bail restrictions did not apply to a breach of that Order, as the notification covered Rule 114 and a contravention of an order made under the rule was not the same as contravention of the rule itself. The High Court's powers under Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remained available, since the constitution of a Special Tribunal to try offences did not expressly or by necessary implication exclude independent bail jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171749