Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.37 seconds)Section 6C in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Krishna Oil And General Merchants And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 June, 1983
In Srikrishria Oil and General Merchant's case (supra) though the essential commodities were confiscated but not sold and, therefore, the Division Bench held that the owner of the essential commodities is entitled to return of the articles or if converted into money, return of the money with reasonable interest.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Shambhu Dayal Agarwala vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 3 May, 1990
Revenue Officer, Chilakalapudi, reported in 1979 Cri LJ (NOC) 40, Sri Krishna Oil and General Merchants and Commission Agents, Reavulapalem v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Cri LJ 173, Shanker Lal Purnimal v. Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1988 AP 352, State of Gujarat v. Mer Parbat, reported in AIR 1991 Gujarat 185, State of M.P. v. Deena Nath, reported in 1994 (2) EFR 197, Shambhu Dayal Agrawal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 (3) SCC 549 and N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663.
N.Nagendra Rao & Co vs State Of A.P on 6 September, 1994
4. Countering the aforesaid arguments Mr. R.K. Marathia, learned G.P. 2 has strongly contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the provisions of Section 6-C (2) of the Act will not apply, rather, the provisions as contained in Section 6-A (5) of the Bihar Act will be applicable and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest on the sale proceeds. Learned State Counsel submits that the very intention of the Legislature in enacting the aforesaid two provisions has to be appreciated in deciding the question. He submits that where any essential commodity is sold pursuant to an order of confiscation under Section 6-A of the E.C. Act and when in appeal under Sub-clause (1) of Section 6-C, the Appellate Authority either annulling or modifying the order appealed against, directs to return the sale proceeds to the owner thereof or the person from whom it is seized, no interest is required to be paid to the person over and above the sale proceeds. Making a distinction between the provisions as laid down in Section 6-A (5) and Section 6-C (2) of the Act learned counsel submits that these two sections contemplates two different situations and in the instant case the provisions of Section 6-A (5) will be applicable and not that of Section 6-C (2) of the Bihar Act.
Rajesh Trading Company vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 August, 1987
15. Similarly, in Rajesh Trading Company's case (supra) their Lordships relied mainly on the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Act, 1955 and in the facts and circumstances of the said case, held that the petitioner was entitled to get interest. In that case the articles were handed over to Biscoman for which payment was to be made by it but the same was not paid pursuant to some order. In these circumstances, the Division Bench held that Biscoman was liable to pay the price of the seized articles as per the contract entered into between it and the petitioner was entitled to get interest.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Deena Nath Kedarnath on 27 October, 1993
Revenue Officer, Chilakalapudi, reported in 1979 Cri LJ (NOC) 40, Sri Krishna Oil and General Merchants and Commission Agents, Reavulapalem v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Cri LJ 173, Shanker Lal Purnimal v. Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1988 AP 352, State of Gujarat v. Mer Parbat, reported in AIR 1991 Gujarat 185, State of M.P. v. Deena Nath, reported in 1994 (2) EFR 197, Shambhu Dayal Agrawal v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1990 (3) SCC 549 and N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2663.