Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr on 21 October, 2016 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 1987

92. In that context and in response to the submission made, this Court drew a distinction between price fixation governed by statutory considerations and price fixation governed by non-statutory considerations. It was held that on this basis Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr.[3] was distinguishable since it dealt with price fixation based on statutory considerations. In a case of price fixation having its origin on non-statutory materials the scope of judicial scrutiny would be far less. It was said in paragraph 15 of the Report as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 286 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990

In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India[5] the decision of the Central Government was supported by the recommendations of the Tariff Commission. These recommendations were criticized in some respects by the BICP. Some members of the sugar industry accepted the views of the Central Government while some did not. Considering the overall circumstances, the Constitution Bench observed that the conclusions of the Central Government are expert conclusions which were not shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or ultra vires.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 468 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Shari Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factor vs Union Of India on 13 October, 1993

In response, the learned Solicitor General referred to Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory v. Union of India. [12] In that decision, it was noted that the levy sugar prices for the 1975-76 sugar season were notified at the same level as those in the previous season. This Court took the view that the re-notification could not be faulted on grounds of arbitrary exercise of power for several reasons mentioned in paragraph 84 of the Report. In other words, the concept or principle of re-notification is not unheard of and there is no illegality per se in re-issuing the norms without any change, but the reasons for re-notification ought to exist – re- notification should not be a short-cut method to be routinely employed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 23 - S Mohan - Full Document

Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. ... vs Union Of India on 30 August, 1974

A similar view was expressed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. when it was said: “Price fixation is in the nature of a legislative action even when it is based on objective criteria founded on relevant material.” In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India[14] this Court was more specific when it said that “Price fixation is more in the nature of a legislative measure even though it may be based upon objective criteria found in a report or other material.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 215 - M H Beg - Full Document

The District Collector, Chittoor And ... vs The Chittoor District Groundnut ... on 11 February, 1987

140. It was then contended on behalf of the manufacturers/formulators that the delegate of a power cannot travel beyond its authorization. Reliance in this regard was placed on V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise Commissioner[17] and District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association.[18] There can be no dispute about this proposition. It was further contended that if the delegate exceeds the powers conferred upon it by the principal, then the order passed by the delegate is void ab initio and cannot even be ratified.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1