Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)Secretary, Ministry Of Chemicals & ... vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Ors on 1 August, 2003
105. Similarly, in Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers v.
Cipla Ltd.[8] it was observed by this Court in paragraph 8.4 of the Report
that bulk drug producers did not disclose necessary information to the
Central Government, despite a request having been made in that regard and
that there was no good reason why the relevant information should be
withheld. It was observed:
Union Of India & Anr vs Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 1987
92. In that context and in response to the submission made, this Court
drew a distinction between price fixation governed by statutory
considerations and price fixation governed by non-statutory considerations.
It was held that on this basis Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. &
Anr.[3] was distinguishable since it dealt with price fixation based on
statutory considerations. In a case of price fixation having its origin on
non-statutory materials the scope of judicial scrutiny would be far less.
It was said in paragraph 15 of the Report as follows:
Prag Ice And Oil Mills And Anr. Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Alongwith Writ ... on 21 February, 1978
95. While learned counsel for Cipla might have serious differences of
opinion with the recommendations of these particular non-statutory Reports,
generally a challenge to Reports prepared by expert bodies is not easy but
is subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. To rephrase what was said in Prag
Ice and Oil Mills and Anr. v. Union of India[4] a factor here or a factor
there that should have been taken into account but has been ignored should
not invalidate the Reports - mere errors in the Reports are not subject to
judicial review.
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 1990
In Shri Sitaram
Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India[5] the decision of the Central Government
was supported by the recommendations of the Tariff Commission. These
recommendations were criticized in some respects by the BICP. Some members
of the sugar industry accepted the views of the Central Government while
some did not. Considering the overall circumstances, the Constitution Bench
observed that the conclusions of the Central Government are expert
conclusions which were not shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory,
unreasonable or ultra vires.
Shari Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factor vs Union Of India on 13 October, 1993
In
response, the learned Solicitor General referred to Shri Malaprabha Coop.
Sugar Factory v. Union of India. [12] In that decision, it was noted that
the levy sugar prices for the 1975-76 sugar season were notified at the
same level as those in the previous season. This Court took the view that
the re-notification could not be faulted on grounds of arbitrary exercise
of power for several reasons mentioned in paragraph 84 of the Report. In
other words, the concept or principle of re-notification is not unheard of
and there is no illegality per se in re-issuing the norms without any
change, but the reasons for re-notification ought to exist – re-
notification should not be a short-cut method to be routinely employed.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs U.O.I on 25 March, 2014
113. In Prag Ice & Oil Mills it was held that price fixation is really
legislative in character since it satisfies the tests of legislation.
Similarly, in Cynamide India it was held that price fixation is more in the
nature of a legislative activity than in any other. Price fixation may
affect manufacturers and producers or commodities but those who are most
vitally affected are the consumers. Similarly, in Glaxosmithkline
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India[13] it was held that price fixation
by the Central Government under the DPCO is in the nature of a legislative
measure and the dominant object and purpose of such price fixation is the
equitable distribution and availability of commodities at a fair price.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. ... vs Union Of India on 30 August, 1974
A
similar view was expressed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shri
Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. when it was said: “Price fixation is in the
nature of a legislative action even when it is based on objective criteria
founded on relevant material.” In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v.
Union of India[14] this Court was more specific when it said that “Price
fixation is more in the nature of a legislative measure even though it may
be based upon objective criteria found in a report or other material.”
V.K. Ashokan vs Asstt. Excise Commnr. & Ors on 5 March, 2009
140. It was then contended on behalf of the manufacturers/formulators that
the delegate of a power cannot travel beyond its authorization. Reliance
in this regard was placed on V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise
Commissioner[17] and District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District
Groundnut Traders Association.[18] There can be no dispute about this
proposition. It was further contended that if the delegate exceeds the
powers conferred upon it by the principal, then the order passed by the
delegate is void ab initio and cannot even be ratified.
The District Collector, Chittoor And ... vs The Chittoor District Groundnut ... on 11 February, 1987
140. It was then contended on behalf of the manufacturers/formulators that
the delegate of a power cannot travel beyond its authorization. Reliance
in this regard was placed on V.K. Ashokan v. Assistant Excise
Commissioner[17] and District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor District
Groundnut Traders Association.[18] There can be no dispute about this
proposition. It was further contended that if the delegate exceeds the
powers conferred upon it by the principal, then the order passed by the
delegate is void ab initio and cannot even be ratified.