In Re: Syed Gaffar Sahib

- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. alfred henry lionel leach, c.j.1. the petitioner has been convicted under section 4 (1) (a) of the madras prohibition act of being in unlawful possession of a quantity of arrack and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 100 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. the court is asked to quash the conviction and sentence in the exercise of its powers of revision on the ground that in prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquor the madras prohibition act is ultra vires the provincial legislature but this contention obviously cannot be accepted so far as this case is concerned.2. clause 31 of the provincial legislative list in the seventh schedule to the government of india act 1935 gives the provincial legislature full power to legislate with regard to the production, manufacture, possession, transport and sale of intoxicating liquors. section 4 (1) (a) of the prohibition act prohibits inter alia the possession of intoxicating liquors. it is said that the act is ultravires the provincial legislature, because clause 19 of the federal legislative list places in the central legislature the power to legislate with regard to 'import and export across frontiers as defined by the federal government'. in this case there is no question of any import or export. the case is merely concerned with the possession of arrack manufactured in the madras presidency. the provincial legislature having power to prohibit the possession of arrack and the petitioner having been found in possession of such liquor the conviction was a lawful one.3. the petition will be dismissed and as we do not consider that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the government of india act, 1935 we do not feel called upon to give a certificate under section 205. it may be added that no certificate has been asked for.