Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.78 seconds)Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shivji Nathubhai vs The Union Of India & Others on 19 January, 1960
On the question of the scope of a Review, the learned
counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Vrajlal
Manilal & Co. v. Union of India & Anr., [1964] 7 SCR 97;
Shivaji Nathubhai v. Union of India & Ors., [1960] 2 SCR
775; Maneka Gandhi, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Swadeshi Cotton Mills,
[1981] 2 SCR 533; and Liberty Oil Mills., [1984] 3 SCR 676.
We are afraid none of these cases is of any assistance to
the correspondence since the court was not concerned in any
of
875
those cases with a review of subordinate legislation by the
subordinate legislating body.
V Rajlal Manilal & Co vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 March, 1964
On the question of the scope of a Review, the learned
counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Vrajlal
Manilal & Co. v. Union of India & Anr., [1964] 7 SCR 97;
Shivaji Nathubhai v. Union of India & Ors., [1960] 2 SCR
775; Maneka Gandhi, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Swadeshi Cotton Mills,
[1981] 2 SCR 533; and Liberty Oil Mills., [1984] 3 SCR 676.
We are afraid none of these cases is of any assistance to
the correspondence since the court was not concerned in any
of
875
those cases with a review of subordinate legislation by the
subordinate legislating body.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
The Anakapalle Co-Operative ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 May, 1977
After referring
to Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1
SCR 380; Union of India v. Bhanamal Gulzarimal, [1960] 2 SCR
627; Sri Krishna Rice Mills v. Joint Director (Food),
(unreported); State of Rajasthan v. Nathmal and Mithamal,
[1954] SCR 982; Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, [1960] 2
SCR 375; Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills v. Union of India,
[1973] 1 SCC 129; Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural &
Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India, [1973] 3 SCC 435
and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Union of India, [1972] 2 SCR
526 a constitution bench of the court observed that the
dominant object and the purpose of the legislation was the
equitable distribution and availability of commodities at
fair price and if profit and the producer's return were to
be kept in the forefront, it would result in losing sight of
the object and the purpose of the-legislation. If the prices
of yarn or cloth were fixed in such a way to enable the
manufacturer or producer recover his cost of production and
secure a reasonable margin of profit, no aspect of infringe-
ment of any fundamental right could be said to arise. It was
to be remembered that the mere fact that some of those were
engaged in the industry, trade or commerce alleged'that they
were incurring loss would not render the law stipulating the
price unreasonable. It was observed,
"The control of prices may have effect either
on maintaining or ,increasing supply of com-
modity or securing equit-
Premier Automobiles Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India on 24 November, 1971
After referring
to Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1
SCR 380; Union of India v. Bhanamal Gulzarimal, [1960] 2 SCR
627; Sri Krishna Rice Mills v. Joint Director (Food),
(unreported); State of Rajasthan v. Nathmal and Mithamal,
[1954] SCR 982; Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, [1960] 2
SCR 375; Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills v. Union of India,
[1973] 1 SCC 129; Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural &
Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India, [1973] 3 SCC 435
and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Union of India, [1972] 2 SCR
526 a constitution bench of the court observed that the
dominant object and the purpose of the legislation was the
equitable distribution and availability of commodities at
fair price and if profit and the producer's return were to
be kept in the forefront, it would result in losing sight of
the object and the purpose of the-legislation. If the prices
of yarn or cloth were fixed in such a way to enable the
manufacturer or producer recover his cost of production and
secure a reasonable margin of profit, no aspect of infringe-
ment of any fundamental right could be said to arise. It was
to be remembered that the mere fact that some of those were
engaged in the industry, trade or commerce alleged'that they
were incurring loss would not render the law stipulating the
price unreasonable. It was observed,
"The control of prices may have effect either
on maintaining or ,increasing supply of com-
modity or securing equit-
Prag Ice And Oil Mills And Anr. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Alongwith Writ ... on 21 February, 1978
In Prag Ice & Oil Mills v. Union of India, [1978] 3 SCC
459 a Constitution Bench of seven judges of this court had
to consider the validity of the Mustard Oil (Price Control)
Order, 1977, an Order made in exercise of the powers con-
ferred upon Central Government by the Essential Commodities
Act. Chandrachud, J. speaking for the court approved the
observation of Beg, CJ. in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
that it was enough compliance with the Constitutional man-
date if the basis adopted for price fixation was not shown
to be so patently unreasonable as to be in excess of the
power to fix the price. He observed
"In the ultimate analysis the mechanics of
price fixation has necessarily to be left to
the judgment of the Executive and unless it is
patent that there is hostiled discrimination
against a class of operators, the processual
basis of price
858
fixation has to be accepted in the generality
of cases as valid."