9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rength of a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay by its order dated January 12, 1972 under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the High Court dated April 8, 1971 dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 148 of 1967 filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant is the sole proprietor of the Navbharat Trading Company, carrying on business in cloth at Ich ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself and that the powerloom owners received only an amount equal to the labour charges. Though, these were findings on pure question of fact, they were challenged by the appellant before the High Court on the ground that they were not supported by any material and were perverse. On that basis it was contended before the High Court that the appellant should be held not to be the manufacturer of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to the powerloom owners and the transactions of alleged purchase of cloth by the petitioner from the powerloom owners were camouflage for the petitioner to get powerloom cloth manufactured by himself by employing powerlooms of the powerloom owners." 4. We see no scope at all for interference with the aforesaid conclusion of fact reached by the High Court. The consequential position that emerges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
