https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402 An order under a public health statute directing destruction or regulated disposal of unwholesome food was not treated as forfeiture of property because the vesting in the municipal authority served only to enable destruction or disposal, not to impose punishment. Forfeiture in the relevant High Court rule meant loss of property by way of penalty for a crime or offence, and the municipal order was not shown to be punitive or a statutory penalty. The Supreme Court therefore held that the single Judge had jurisdiction to hear the reference, and the appeal failed. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402 An order under a public health statute directing destruction or regulated disposal of unwholesome food was not treated as forfeiture of property because the vesting in the municipal authority served only to enable destruction or disposal, not to impose punishment. Forfeiture in the relevant High Court rule meant loss of property by way of penalty for a crime or offence, and the municipal order was not shown to be punitive or a statutory penalty. The Supreme Court therefore held that the single Judge had jurisdiction to hear the reference, and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277402