Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)
T.P. Sundaralingam vs The State Of Madras And Ors. on 5 December, 1969 cites

R. Lakshminarayanan And Ors. vs V.A. Maruthappa Nainar And Ors. on 20 January, 1969

It will include, as held by Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar. (FB) an existing rice mill operator in a locality. But it is not open to review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as such in an appeal. Weighing the circumstances in an appellate function, and what the Court under Article 226 is concerned with, is not to approach the matter as an appellate Court but to scrutinise to see whether relevant circumstances have been ignored, or irrelevant matters have influenced the grant, or refusal of the licence, and whether the power has been exercised in a given case arbitrarily, or mala fide.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sanghi Jeevaraj Ghewar Chand & Ors vs Secretary, Madras Chillies, Grains ... on 16 July, 1968

'Unemployment' should in the context refer not to rice mill industry, but seems to have reference to hand-pounding industry. As a matter of fact, rule 3(2)(e) directs the investigation to find whether the hand pounding industry in the locality is already well organised, and whether the establishment of a new rice mill is likely to affect adversely that industry. It is true, the objects and reasons of a statute are irrelevant to interpretation, or construction of its provisions. But as the Supreme Court observed in Sanghi Jeevraj Ghewar Chand v. Secy., Madras Chillies, Grains and Kirana Merchants Workers Union. they can also be "legitimately used for ascertaining the object which the Legislature had in mind, though not for construing the Act." The statement of objects and reasons for the Act is this:
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 51 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others on 24 April, 1956

b. foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils; and certain other articles. The interrelation to these articles in obvious. All industries fall within Entry 24 of List II. The State Legislature is exclusively competent to make laws in respect of industries. But inasmuch as the entry in subject to Entry 52 of List I, where Parliament by law declares that it is expedient in the public interest for the Union to control any specified industry, the Parliament will have the entire power to make any law in respect of such control led industry, and correspondingly the State Legislature under Entry 24 will cease to have competence to make laws in respect of the controlled industry. Where trade and commerce are within the exclusive sphere of State Legislature under Entry 26 and where it relates to products of any controlled industry both Parliament and the State Legislature will have concurrent power to legislate in respect of it. If rice milling is not an industry, in the sense that no manufacturing is involved in it, then notwithstanding the declaration in Section 2 of the Act it will be ultra vires the powers of the Parliament, unless it can be supported, as it is sought to be, in the alternative as a law relating to trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of foodstuffs under Entry 33(b) of List III. We do not think that this alternative, on the view we take, is necessary. What is an industry? It is too wide a term, and will include a variety of things. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, observes:
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 420 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next