Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 1987
In Union of India vs. Cynamide India Ltd. reported in AIR 1987 SC
1802 the Supreme Court held that in the analysis, the mechanics of price
fixation had necessarily to be left to the judgment of the executive, and
unless it was patent that there was hostile discrimination against a class of
operators, the procedural basis of price fixation had to be accepted in the
generality of cases as valid.
Pijush Kanti Chowdhury vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 14 May, 2007
In Pijus Kanti Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in
2007 (3) CHN 178, cited on behalf of the petitioners the Division Bench held
that when a decision had been declared ultra vires by an order of the High
Court, the State could not invoke the ultra vires even simply because the
operation of the order of the High Court had been stayed by the Supreme
Court temporarily. It is well-established that a judgment remains valid
until set aside by a superior Court, even though the operation thereof may
14
remain stayed, pending disposal of an appeal. The judgment has no
application to the facts of this case.
Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair vs The State Of Kerala And Another(With ... on 9 December, 1960
No statute is immune from challenge. As held by the Supreme Court
in K.T. Moopil Nair vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1961 SC 552, cited on
behalf of the petitioners, even a taxing statute is not immune from attack on
the ground of violation of Article 14. It is, however, nobody's case that a
taxing statute is immune from attack on the ground of violation of Article
Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 July, 1985
In Bhim Singhji vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1981 (1) SCC
166, the Supreme Court held that certain provisions of the Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was taken as ultra vires the constitution of
India. The judgment also has no application in the facts and circumstances
of this case.
H.S.S.K. Niyami And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 August, 1990
In H.S.S.K. Niyami & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR
1990 SC 2128 the Supreme Court upheld the vires of Section 3(3C) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as also zoning of areas for determination
of price. The Supreme Court held that individual sugar factories need not
be given notice of hearing.
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Prag Ice And Oil Mills And Anr. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Alongwith Writ ... on 21 February, 1978
In Prag Ice and Oil Mills
vs. Union of India reported in 1978 SC 1296, the Supreme Court held that
price fixation was neither the function nor the forte of the Court. The Court
was neither concerned with the policy nor with the rates. But the Court in
an appropriate case had jurisdiction to enquire into the question of whether
relevant factors had been taken into consideration and irrelevant factors
had been kept out of consideration. For example, if the legislature had
decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the
determination of the price, the Court would, if necessary, enquire into the
question of whether the policy and the stipulated factors were taken into
account by the authorities specifying the price. The Supreme Court held
that the assembling of the raw materials and the mechanics of price fixation
were the concern of the executive. The Court would not reevaluate the
considerations even if the prices were demonstrably injurious to some
manufacturers or producers.