TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (5) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the petitioner-depot is one of the six depots being run in the country by the Medical Stores Organization. The other depots are at Madras, Bombay, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Gohati. The organization functions under the control of the Directorate-General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Government of India. It is admitted that the depot is a department of the Government of India. It is also stated in the petitions that the petitioner depot is engaged in the work of meeting the demands for medical stores of the Government and the semiGovernment hospitals and does not carry on any business of sale of medical goods as such. It is added that supply of medical stores by the depot to its constituents does not involve any commercial acti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epends: Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to a dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, engagement, sanad or other similar instrument, which, having been entered into or executed before the commencement of this Constitution, continues in operation after such commencement, or which provides that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute." The present dispute as to whether the State of Haryana has a legal right to proceed against the petitioner admitted to be a department of the Government of India is covered by article 131 of the Constitution. In order that courts other than the Supreme Court be deprived of their jurisdiction and the matter be exclusively determinable by the Supreme Court, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of these admissions on the part of the petitioner, there cannot be any gainsaying the fact that the petitioner-depot is functioning as a limb of the Medical Stores Organization under the control of the Directorate-General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, Government of India. The petitioner has claimed itself to be part of the Government of India and hence Government of India. The petitioner has in its petitions proceeded against the State of Haryana and specifically impleaded that State as respondent. Thus, the dispute that has arisen in these petitions is one between the Government of India on the one hand and the State of Haryana on the other. The first condition of article 131 is satisfied. As already alluded to, it is contended....