M/S. SABLE WAGHIRE & CO. & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 is within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 49 or residuary Entry 97 of List I; the delegation of power to the Central Government under section 8 is not excessive as there is sufficient legislative guidance and policy; the Act imposes reasonable and regulatory restrictions and does not violate Article 19(1)(f) and (g); absence of rules does not render the Act unworkable; the notification was validly issued and published by duly authorised officer.
- Parties
- Petitioner: M/S. Sable Waghire & Co. and others; Respondent: Union of India and others
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 1975
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment of Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Petitions dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Legislative Competence, Delegated Legislation, Freedom of Trade and Commerce, Excessive Delegation, Reasonable Restrictions, Trademark Registration
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M/S. Sable Waghire & Co. and others
Petitioner
Union of India and others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Final Judgment of Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 was void for lack of legislative competence of Parliament
- 2 Whether sections 3, 4, and 8 of the Act suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power
- 3 Whether the Act or the Notification violated petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g)
Ratio Decidendi
The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 is within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 49 or residuary Entry 97 of List I; the delegation of power to the Central Government under section 8 is not excessive as there is sufficient legislative guidance and policy; the Act imposes reasonable and regulatory restrictions and does not violate Article 19(1)(f) and (g); absence of rules does not render the Act unworkable; the notification was validly issued and published by duly authorised officer.
Court Disposition
Petitions dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment