Skip to content


Nov 26 1973 (SC)

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1974SC366; (1974)1SCC468; [1974]2SCR398

..... be shown that the executive action taken during the emergency has no authority as a valid law its constitutionality can be challenged. the cotton textiles order 1948 was continued by essential commodities act, 1955. the impugned orders are made under pre-emergency cotton textiles control order. the validity of the impugned orders is challenged under article 19(1)(f) and (g) ..... and a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business was founded on the construction that sub-sections (3), (3a), (3b) and (3c) of section 3 of essential commodities act, 1955 constitute a single scheme and what is implicit in sub-section (3) is made explicit in sub-section (3c).71. the power to fix controlled price is in section 3 ..... related to foodstuffs, cattle fodder etc. which are not products of such industries.30. on 19 october, 1962 a notification was issued under section 2(xi) of the essential commodities act, 1955 declaring commodities specified therein used in the process of manufacturing yarn and machinery for manufacturing cloth. textile machinery production and distribution order, 1962 was issued under section 3 of the ..... provisions of the 1948 order relating to cotton yarn cannot be said to have been continued in force either under section 16 of the essential commodities ordinance 1955 or under section 16(2) of the essential commodities act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the 1955 act as cotton yarn is not covered by the item 'cotton and woollen textiles' under section 2(a)(iv) of the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 14 1959 (SC)

The State of Bihar Vs. Hiralal Kejriwal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1960SC47; 1960CriLJ150; [1960]1SCR726

..... basudev prasad, cloth merchants of balia, from patna ghat without obtaining a permit from the textile controller, bihar. they were prosecuted under s. 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (x of 1955), hereinafter called the act, read with s. 3 of the cotton textiles (control of movement) order, 1948, hereinafter called the order, in the court of the munsif-magistrate, patna ..... made, licence or permit granted or direction issued under this ordinance. 6. this ordinance was published in the gazette of india on january 21, 1955, and came into force on january 26, 1955. the essential commodities act, 1955. s. 3(1) : if the central government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing ..... supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the ..... i) a general permit notified in the gazette of india by the textile commissioner; or (ii) a special transport permit issued by the textile commissioner. the essential commodities ordinance, 1955. preamble : 'whereas the essential supplies (temporary powers) act, 1946 (xxiv of 1946), which confers powers to control the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 06 1959 (SC)

The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1959SC1124; [1960]1SCR39

..... the reasonableness of legislative restrictions on fundamental rights. now coming to the facts of the present case, it is not suggested that the, essential commodities act, 1955, and the impugned act form part of one scheme of legislation. indeed the essential commodities act was enacted to provide in the interest of the general. public for control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and ..... (iii) it exposed them to a penalty in case the delivery was short of the quota. by a notification issued under the sugar (control) order, 1955, which was made under the essential commodities act, 1955, the central government increased the price of sugar for internal sales by 50 np. per maund to enable the owners to recoup the loss suffered by them ..... restrictions imposed can be on the basis that the freedom was abridged or curtailed unduly or arbitrarily. but for the act, the petitioners could have sold their sugar in the open market without exceeding the rates fixed under the essential commodities act, 1955. the correspondence filed in the ease, marked as annexures a, b and c, clearly demonstrates that both the industry ..... to notice a few relevant and material facts. the essential commodities act, 1955 (act 10 of 1955), was enacted for the purpose mentioned in the preamble to that act. in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 of the said act, the central government issued an order dated august 27, 1955, called the sugar (control) order, 1955. under r. 5 of the said order, the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 23 1964 (SC)

Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1965SC1167; [1965]2SCR192

..... foodstuffs and other goods;and so, the material provisions of the fruit order which really prevent theadulteration of fruit products could be legitimately enacted under this act. onthe other hand, the essential commodities act, 1955 is relateable to entry 33in list iii and the fruit order issued under it would, therefore, beinappropriate, having regard to the object which this order ..... is intended toachieve. he argues that the two powers are distinct and separate, and the fruitorder with which we are concerned, cannot be said properly to have been issuedunder the act. ..... ,particularly for ailments like loss of appetite, sun stroke, nausea,sleeplessness, etc. this sharbat rooh afza is not a foodstuff, and cannot beregarded as an essential commodity under section 2 of the essential commoditiesact, 1955 (no. 10 of 1955) (hereinafter called 'the act'). in substance, thisis the case as set out by the appellants in their petition. 3. purporting to ..... order, 1947, issued undersection 3(1) of the act, has definitely ruled that a qualitative regulation inrespect of the production of an essential commodity is permissible undersection 3(1) of the act. 12. that takes us to the fruit products order which was issued by thecentral government on may 3, 1955, in exercise of the powers conferred on it bysection .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 29 1961 (SC)

Mannalal JaIn Vs. the State of Assam and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1962SC386; [1962]3SCR936

..... of state action in entrusting wholesale distribution of sugar which is an essential commodity under the essential commodities act, 1955, to co-operative societies only and excluding other dealers holding similar licenses like the co-operative societies from such distribution, was challenged and arose for consideration. it was held ..... the state government has resorted to an indirect method. instead of making an order authorising such monopoly (if the state was competent to make such an order under the essential commodities act, 1955, as to which we express no opinion), it has chosen to adopt the indirect method of issuing instructions to the licensing authorities in all the districts to grant ..... for the petitioner that sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the control order, 1961, can have no relation whatsoever to the two objects mentioned in section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955. on behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision in ramanlal nagardas v. m. s. palnitkar : air1961guj38 . that was a case in which the validity ..... (e) of clause 5 of the control order, 1961, is within the authority and power granted to the state government under section 3 read with section 5 of the essential commodities act, 1955. secondly, it is contended that no monopoly has been granted to the assam co-operative apex marketing society ltd., and the order of the licensing authority dated april 11 .....

Tag this Judgment!
Aug 10 1999 (SC)

The Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1999SC3125; 1999(4)ARBLR502(SC); 1999(3)BLJR2191; JT1999(5)SC422; 1999(4)SCALE516; (1999)9SCC620; [1999]Supp1SCR146

..... edible oilseeds and edible oils (storage control) order, 1977, the vegetable oil product producers (regulation of refined oil manufacture) order, 1973, all framed under section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955, also cannot be of any avail of the appellant industries for the simple reason that none of these orders deals with the topic of regulation of prices and sale and ..... maida, suzi, bran etc. would remain outside the domain of the state legislature.114. shri ranjit kumar then placed reliance on the statutory orders framed under section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955. so far as the wheat rolling flour mills (licensing and control) order, 1957 is concerned, reliance was placed by him on clauses 2 and 10 of the definition clause ..... of 1980 in so far it provides for regulation of marketing of sugarcane is unconstitutional as its marketing is regulated by the provisions of the central act, viz., the essential commodities act, 1955, and the sugarcane (control) order made thereunder? while answering point no. 3 in affirmative, the learned judge at para 39 of the report, made the following pertinent ..... therefore, now proceed to consider this submission.47. sugarcane (control) order, 1966 is issued by the central government in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955. clause 2 sub-clause (c) defines factory and reads as under:'factory' means any premises including the precincts thereto in any part of which sugar is manufactured by .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 06 2003 (SC)

S. Samuel, M.D., Harrisons Malayalam and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC218; JT2003(8)SC413; (2004)1SCC256; [2003]134STC610(SC)

..... within the meaning of 'foodstuffs' listed as sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of section 2 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter, the ec act, for short) which defines 'essential commodity'.2. the ec act was enacted to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution ..... ms.no. 180, food, dated 20th august, 1977) xxxxx xxxxx now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (central act 10 of 1955 read with the government of india, ministry of agriculture (department of food) order no. gsr.316(e), dated the 20th june, 1972 published ..... 1078, p.1437. [no. 3(genl) (1)/78-d & r(1)-59] in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the order of the government of india in the late ministry of agriculture (department of food). no. gsr 316 (e), ..... june 1972 g.s.r. 316 (e) - in exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the essential commodities act, 1955 (x of 1955) the central government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said ..... the samples were subjected to laboratory test by the public analyst, based on whose report a complaint was filed before the special judge for essential commodities act cases at coimbatore, tamil nadu, against the petitioners. the principal allegation against the petitioners is that the samples taken were found to contain .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 13 2007 (SC)

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2007CriLJ1678; JT2007(3)SC466; 2007(3)SCALE49; (2007)4SCC171

..... march, 2005, bombay high court allowed the writ petitions filed by lalit nagpal and anil nagpal upon holding that having regard to the provisions of the essential commodities act, 1955 and the essential commodities (special provisions) act, 1981, the provisions of mcoca would have no application to the cases against the petitioners. the state of maharashtra has filed s.l.p.(crl.) nos ..... special leave petitions filed by the state of maharashtra relates to the applicability of mcoca to offences under the essential commodities act, 1955, having particular regard to the enactment of the essential commodities (special provisions) act, 1981.36. as noticed hereinbefore, the essential commodities (special provisions) act, 1981 came into force on 1stseptember, 1982 and was to remain in force for a period of 15 years ..... alleged to have been committed by lalit nagpal and others in connection with cr 39 of 2004 under sections 3 and 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 and section 3 of the petroleum storage and distribution act, 2000 and in respect of cr no. ii-b of 2005 of rasayani p.s., raigad.9. mr. lalit drew our attention ..... , a case was registered at karveer police station, kolhapur, being c.r. no. 39/2004, under sections 3 and 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955 and under section 3 of the petroleum storage and distribution act, 2000 against 11 accused persons. out of the 11 accused persons 10 were arrested and produced before the chief judicial magistrate, kolhapur, and remanded .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 23 1959 (SC)

Diwan Sugar and General Mills (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Union of ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1959SC626; [1959]Supp(2)SCR123

..... join the petition. 2. the case of the petitioners is that the essential commodities act, 1955 (x of 1955), (hereinafter called the act), was passed by parliament in 1955, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities, which included sugar. by s. 3 of the act, the central government was given the power, if it was of opinion ..... that it was necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity ..... is no reasonable calcification discernible on any intelligible differentia on the basis of which prices have been controlled in certain regions only. 5. re. (1) (a). the act deals with essential commodities which have been defined therein. the preamble shows that it has been passed in the interest of the general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution ..... our attention was invited to clause (c) of s. 3(2), which provides for control of price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. now there is no doubt that the object of the act is to secure essential commodities for the consumer, i.e., the general public, at fair prices; but it does not follow from this that this .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 04 1986 (SC)

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC856; 1986(9)ECC56; 1986(6)LC553(SC); 1986(24)ELT175(SC); 1986(1)SCALE293; (1986)2SCC288; [1986]1SCR440; [1986]Supp1SCR440; 1986(2)LC290(SC)

..... . the appellant is a manufacturer engaged in the business of manufacturing certain vegetable oil products (hydrogenated oil) at its factory in delhi. vegetable oil product was an essential commodity under section 2(ii) of the essential commodities act, 1955. on february 22, 1971 the director (vanaspati), who had been authorised by the vegetable oil products controller of india under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii ..... factors such as supply, demand etc. etc. there is no guarantee that the goods in respect of which the maximum price is fixed under a notification issued under the essential commodities act, 1955 and orders made thereunder would actually be sold at the maximum price mentioned in the notification. the wholesale cash price realised by the manufacturers may fall below such maximum ..... determine the wholesale cash price in accordance with the well-settled principles, of course, keeping also in view the maximum price fixed by the government of india under the essential commodities act, 1955. but in the orders of the excise authorities which are impugned in this appeal we find that they have not made any attempt to determine the wholesale cash price ..... for which maximum price is fixed at wholesale cash prices which are higher than the maximum price. in that event he would suffer the penal consequence under the essential commodities act, 1955 and also would be liable to pay excise duty on the basis of the higher wholesale cash price realised by him. he would not be taxed under the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //