Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.10 seconds)Article 31C in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
In Shri Sitaram Sugar
Company's case, the Constitution Bench also held that the
above decision requires no reconsideration. But the observa-
tions therein have been made based upon the recommendation
made by the Tariff Commission and accepted by the government
to keep each State in a particular zone but when the subse-
quent Sugar Commission went into the question since by then
there is appreciable increase of large number of sugar
factories in several regions, though not on the Statewise
basis in a particular zone. As stated earlier the recommen-
dations are based on indepth study. The notification as such
was not questioned in the writ petition. Therefore, the
observation of this
872
Court in that paragraph cannot be construed to put a fetter
on the power of the government to reconsider the policy due
to change in circumstances of groupings of the sugar facto-
ries in a State in one zone or other region.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 1987
In Union of India & Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr.,
[1987] 2 SCC 720 at 734 & 735, Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking
for the Court held that legislative action, plenary or
subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice. In
the case of Parliamentary legislation, the proposition is
self evident. In the case of subordinate legislation, it
itself provide for a notice and for a hearing, no one can
insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read natu-
ral justice into such legislative activity.
1