Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 3 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Article 77 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 September, 2014
16. By again referring to the aforesaid judgment reported in (2014)
10 SCC 673 (Gulf Goans Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Union of India), the
learned counsel has submitted that it has been clearly held that any
executive action must conform to the prescription of Article 77 or
Article 166 of the Constitution of India to have a recourse of law and
all executive action of the Government either at the Union or the State
level are to be taken in the name of the President or the Governor as
the case may be and is required to be published in the Official Gazette.
He has further submitted that in absence of any publication in the
Official Gazette, such MDG are otherwise also not enforceable.
However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel has
fairly submitted that the point regarding requirement of publication of
MDG has not been taken in the writ petition or in any of the pleadings
filed in this case.
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 53 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
S.A.L. Narayan Row And Anr. vs Ishwarlal Bhagwandas And Anr. on 7 May, 1965
14. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondent-
Indian Oil Corporation have sought to justify the MDG by referring to
the 'faithful performance clause', but such reference is not
permissible in the eyes of law as the respondents are not competent to
impose penalty which imposition is essentially quasi-criminal in the
form of fines. He has further submitted that the breach of any
agreement may result in civil consequences in the form of damages,
recovery of loss, compensation, etc., but so far as imposition of
penalty is concerned, the same is in the nature of fine and has roots in
Section 53 Indian Penal Code being one of the punishments for the
offences committed therein, and therefore, the respondents do not
have any jurisdiction to impose penalty in the nature of fine. A
reliance has been placed to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1965) SCC OnLine SC 18 (S.A.L.
Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas) by submitting that it has
been held in the aforesaid judgment, that criminal proceeding
ordinarily concludes by imposition of sentence and fine or forfeiture
of property is also prescribe sentence under the Criminal
Jurisprudence, but so far as civil proceedings are concerned, the same
is followed by payment of debt, damages, compensation, and delivery
of a specific property.
Khemka & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 February, 1975
He has further referred to the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1975) 2 SCC 22 (Khemka
& Co. (Agencies) (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) to submit that, it
has been held that imposition of pecuniary liability is comparable to a
punishment for commission of an offence and, in the instant case,
9
penalty is in the nature of fine which has been created by the
respondents themselves through MDG which is not backed by any
enactment and, therefore, the provision of penalty in the nature of fine
in MDG is itself wholly without jurisdiction.