Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.00 seconds)Section 2 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC
223 the Supreme Court observed :
Section 28 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997
In paragraph 42 of the aforesaid decision this Court quoted from its
earlier decision in M.P. Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P. 1997(7) SCC 592
as follows :
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs Delhi Administration And Ors on 22 March, 2001
26. The same view has been taken by this court in Ugar Sugar Works
Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 635 (vide para 18),
Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC
471 (vide para 23 and 24), Netai Bag and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 262 (vide para 20), etc..
Bhavesh D. Parish & Others vs Union Of India And Another on 12 May, 2000
26. The same view has been taken by this court in Ugar Sugar Works
Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 635 (vide para 18),
Bhavesh D. Parish and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC
471 (vide para 23 and 24), Netai Bag and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 262 (vide para 20), etc..
P.T.R. Exports (Madras)Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 1996
In P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.
1996(5) SCC 268 (vide para 3 and 5) this Court held that the power to frame
a policy by executive or legislative decision included the power to withdraw
the same.
P. J. Irani vs The State Of Madras on 21 April, 1961
30. A plain reading of Section 29B shows that having regard to the stage
of development of any schedule industry if the Central Government is of the
opinion that there should be an exemption from some or all of the provisions
of the Act, it can issue an appropriate notification for this purpose. Sub-
section 2 of the Section 29B also confers upon the Central Government an
express power of cancellation of such exemption. In our opinion sufficient
1
guidelines have been provided by the legislature for the Government in this
connection. The power conferred under Section 29B is in our opinion not
tainted by the vice of excessive delegation because the essential legislative
policy is specified in the preamble to the IDR Act and is writ large
throughout the provisions of the Act. The grounds on which exemption
from licensing can be granted - one of them being the stage of development
of the industry - are also specified in Section 29B. The legislative policy
having been clearly stated, in our opinion there is no excessive delegation.
See in this connection P.J. Irani vs. State of Madras (1962) 2 SCR 169at
pages 179-180, Sitaram Bishambar Dayal vs. State of U.P. (1972) 4 SCC
485 (vide para 5 and 7), Mahe Beach Trading Co. and Ors. vs. Union
Territory of Pondicherry and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 741 (vide para 13),
State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Sabhanayagam (1998) 1 SCC 318 (vide para
14, 19, 20 and 21), Consumer Action Group vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(2000) 7 SCC 425 (vide para 5-18, 41 reviews case law on delegated
legislation right from F. N. Balsara) and Kishan Prakash Sharma and Ors.
vs. Union of India and Ors. (2001) 5 SCC 212 (vide para 18-20).