DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA ETC.
Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 are valid, not arbitrary, do not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), constitute a reasonable regulatory measure to secure deposit repayment and curb abuse, are within legislative competence, and are not ultra vires or excessively delegated.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Delhi Cloth and General Mills, etc.; Respondent: Union of India, etc.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 21 July 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition and Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- petitions and appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Constitutional Validity, Delegated Legislation, Deposits Regulation, Fundamental Rights, Legislative Competence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Delhi Cloth and General Mills, etc.
Petitioner
Union of India, etc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition and Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 are constitutionally valid
- 2 Whether the obligations imposed violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
- 3 Whether Rule 3A is ultra vires Section 58A
Ratio Decidendi
Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit) Rules, 1975 are valid, not arbitrary, do not violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), constitute a reasonable regulatory measure to secure deposit repayment and curb abuse, are within legislative competence, and are not ultra vires or excessively delegated.
Court Disposition
petitions and appeals dismissed
Orders
- Petitions and appeals dismissed with costs in each matter.
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