Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Tarsem Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1996

Raghbir Singh vs State Of Pb. & Ors on 11 January, 2023

It would be worth noticing here that the Regulation 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 also came to be tested in this Court in a case titled as Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India, 1996(2) 283 wherein, the said peace of legislation was held to be violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India while striking it down with the observation that it has snatched a valuable right of a person who deals in a trade of fertilizer and sells the sealed and stitched bags as supplied to him by the manufacturer holding even such dealer liable for punishment who has properly stored the essential commodities such as 'fertilizer'. It would be apetite to produce para 12 and 13 of the afore- said judgment, which reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Kumar And Anr. vs Sr. Supdt. Of Police And Ors. on 29 September, 1997

25. It will be inappropriate to compare the provisions of Control Order with that of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Food items are manufactured and sold by millions and their number is also very large. A restaurant: owner or sweet meat seller keeps on manufacturing food items almost continuously. Petrol or diesel is not manufactured or produced by dealers nor it is supplied by private manufactures. There are only four oil companies which are all government corporations which supply the product to the dealers. The Government Corporations are not expected and will not supply sub-standard or adulterated material and it can be presumed that the product supplied by them would be pure and would conform to the standards laid down by Indian Standards Institution. The dealer is only required to maintain the product in the same condition in which he had received it. There is no compulsion on any one to get a dealership of petrol or diesel. Any one who wants to be appointed as a dealer of an oil company does so by his own choice and after becoming a dealer he cannot be heard to complain that the Control Order by which he is governed does not give him a second opportunity to get the sample analysed again. We think that in view of the nature of the commodity involved, its source of supply being oil companies as defined in Clause 2(g) and the requirement being confined to variation of density within permissible limits as required by Schedule-I, a dealer cannot complain violation of Article 21 of the Constitution merely on the ground that a second opportunity to get the sample analysed is not provided to him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Surjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 September, 2022

It would be worth noticing here that the Regulation 19 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 also came to be tested in this Court in a case titled as Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India, 1996(2) 283 wherein, the said peace of legislation was held to be violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India while striking it down with the observation that it has snatched a valuable right of a person who deals in a trade of fertilizer and sells the sealed and stitched bags as supplied to him by the manufacturer holding even such dealer liable for punishment who has properly stored the essential commodities such as 'fertilizer'. It would be apetite to produce para 12 and 13 of the afore-said judgment, which reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Moudgil - Full Document

Manoj Grover vs State Of Punjab on 15 December, 2009

Thus, it is apparent that the fertilizers were supplied by M/s Indian Potash Limited to M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Chemicals of which the petitioner is a partner and the same was supplied in stitched bags. Further Indian Potash Limited, Ludhiana actually received the DAP from M/s Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers, Misadia, Village Orissa. This Court in the case titled as Tarsem Singh vs. Union of India reported as 1996(2) 283, in paras 12 and 13 held as under :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - K N Kaur - Full Document
1