Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 Court:Supreme

Oct 30 2001

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Paramasiva Pandian

  • Decided on : 30-Oct-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC2972; 2001CriLJ4772; 2002(79)ECC148; 2002(140)ELT327(SC); JT2001(9)SC357; 2001(7)SCALE532; (2002)1SCC15

D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the special court which ceased to be a special court under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus:4. The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') in the year 2000. In that connection crime Nos. 3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused. They were arrested and remanded to jail. Two of the accused persons were produced before the area magistrate who remanded them...
Apr 29 2008

Holani Auto Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

  • Decided on : 29-Apr-2008

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2008(6)SC417; 2008(7)SCALE77; 2008AIRSCW5862

Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of May, 2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 890 of 2000 whereby the High Court had set aside an order dated 26th of February, 2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar, M.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1999 who in his turn had set aside an order dated 20th of December, 1999 passed by the Collector, Sagar in so far as he proceeded to include M/s. Holani Auto Links Pvt. Ltd. (in short the 'Appellant Company.') within the definition of 'Dealer' as contained in Clause 2(a) of the M.P. Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price & Price Control) Order, 1977 (in short the 'Order of 1977') and held them guilty for violating Clauses 3(1) to 3(3) and 6(1) of the Order of 1977.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows.The Appellant Company was appointed as a Distributor by Castrol India Ltd. (in short the 'manufacturing company') by entering i...
Sep 14 1959

The State of Bihar Vs. Hiralal Kejriwal and Anr.

  • Decided on : 14-Sep-1959

Court : Supreme Court of India

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

Subba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Bihar against the judgment of the High court of Judicature at Patna quashing the criminal proceedings launched against the respondents in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Patna. 2. The two respondents were the proprietors of a firm called M/s. Patna Textiles doing business in cotton at Patna. On August 30, 1955, they despatched two bales of saries to M/s. Hiralal 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. The respondents filed a petition before the said Munsif-Magistrate praying for their discharge on the ground that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (XXIV of 1946), here...
Jul 25 1989

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narayan Singh and Ors.

  • Decided on : 25-Jul-1989

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC1789; 1989CriLJ2101; 1989(3)Crimes16(SC); JT1990(3)SC239; 1989(2)SCALE93; (1989)3SCC596; [1989]3SCR549; 1989(2)LC700(SC)

S. Natarajan, J.1. In both he appeals by special leave, a common question of law is involved and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In Crl. Appeal No. 49/78, a lorry driver and two cleaners and in Crl. Appeal No. 24/78 a lorry driver and a coolie were prosecuted for exporting fertilisers without a permit therefor from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra in contravention of the Fertilisers (Movement Control) Order, 1973 (for short the F.M.C. Order) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short the E. C. Act). In both the cases, the Trial Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused were attempting to export the fertilisers and he therefore acquitted them. On the State preferring appeals against acquittal under Section 378(3) Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court declined to grant leave. Hence the State has preferred these appeals by special leave.2. The facts in the two cases are identic...
Dec 20 1974

Kamla Prasad Vs. The District Magistrate, Saran and Ors.

  • Decided on : 20-Dec-1974

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1975SC726; 1975CriLJ605; (1975)1SCC314; 1975(7)LC104(SC)

K.K. Matthew, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention passed under Section 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, by the District Magistrate, Saran, on 10-6-1974 and prays for issue of a writ of habeas corpus.2. The ground of detention served on the petitioner on 15-6-1974 states :On a surprise inspection by the District Supply Officer, Chapra, on 10-6-1974, it was found that he had hoarded and concealed the following stock of essential commodities in his shop :(1) Match boxes Sankh Brand-7 bundles-15 dozen (one bundle = 60 dozen)(2) Match boxes Tank Brand-2 bundles 32 dozen.(3) Match boxes Sanpagam flower-52 dozen(4) Match boxes Delux-2 dozen(5) Soap-501 brand-33 (1/2 bars)(6) Soap-Nirmal-3 (1/2 bars)3. In addition, the following stock was also found hidden under chauki in his residential house separate from the business premises :(1) Match boxes-65 gross (9360 pieces)(2) Ashoka Soap-5 cartons (360 pieces)All these articles were unaccounte...
Jul 08 1996

Sasa Musa Sugar Works etc. etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others etc.

  • Decided on : 08-Jul-1996

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC188; JT1997(6)SC329; 1997(5)SCALE155; (1996)9SCC681; [1996]Supp3SCR149

ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals and the special leave petition involve common question of law and they arise out of the common judgment dated January 20, 1994, passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowed in part the Writ Petitions filed by several sugar mills of Bihar challenging the validity of Section 4A and 4B inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 1993. Section 33M as inserted by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 1992; notification dated August 31, 1992 issued under Section 4 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Markets Act), and also challenging the validity of imposition of market fee under the Markets Act in view of exemption of all the sugar mills in Bihar from the provision of Section 15 of the Markets act under notification dated March 22, 1976. The High Court on the basis of respective contentio...
Jan 22 2010

Satyanarayana Sultania and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

  • Decided on : 22-Jan-2010

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC230; 2010(1)SCALE660; (2010)2SCC684

Altamas Kabir, J.1. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th March, 2008, passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur in Crl. Revision No. 459 of 2002, dismissing the same.2. Briefly stated, the facts involved are that on 3rd February, 2000, a hundred bags of paddy were being transported by one Ramesh Sahu, the driver of truck No. MP-23DA 2115 belonging to the one Hemant Kumar, the Petitioner No. 2 herein. The said driver was transporting the said paddy on the strength of a letter written on the letter pad of Bajrang Rice Mill. En route the truck was searched by the Food Inspector and the paddy was seized. In accordance with Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1997 confiscation proceedings were initiated and the seized paddy was ordered to be confiscated by the Collector. An appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilsapur, in Crl. Appeal...
Jul 16 2009

Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...

  • Decided on : 16-Jul-2009

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2009)224CTR(SC)538; [2009]315ITR21(SC); JT2009(9)SC500; 2009(9)SCALE551; (2009)8SCC393; [2009]182TAXMAN287(SC); 2009(8)LC3527(SC); 2009(7)SCC393

S. H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question which arises for consideration in this civil appeal turns on the interpretation of Section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whose predecessor was Section 14(3)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.FACTS3. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are few and undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows. Appellant-society is a co-operative society registered under Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Appellant is running a consumer co-operative store at Udaipur since 1963. It has 30 branches. Appellant is dealing in non-controlled commodities through its branches. In addition, appellant is also doing the work of distribution of controlled commodities such as wheat, sugar, rice and cloth on behalf of the Government under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) for which it is getting commission. The distribution of the controlled commodities is regulated by the District Supply Officer (DSO-Authoriesed Officer) under Rajastha...
Feb 13 2007

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and Anr.

  • Decided on : 13-Feb-2007

Court : Supreme Court of India

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

Altamas Kabir, J.1. Five Special Leave Petitions, of which three have been filed by the State of Maharashtra, one by Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and one by Kapil Nagpal, have been taken up for hearing together as they involve common questions of law relating to the application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts involved in these Special Leave Petitions. 2. On 6th June, 2004 the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), Crime Branch, Mumbai alongwith other officers, including the District Supply Officer, Kolhapur, Nayab Tehsildar, Taluka Karveer, Distt. Kolhapur, raided Vijayanand Petrol Pump, Kolhapur and seized two iron tanks of 12,000 and 6,000 litres capacity, greenish lubricating oil in 200 litres barrel, 45 kilos of white chemical powder in 5 gunny...
May 01 1975

Nathmal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

  • Decided on : 01-May-1975

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1975SC2198; 1975CriLJ1871; (1975)2SCC591; 1975()WLN254

N.L. Untwalia, J.1. These are two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by two persons who are brothers asking for writs of habeas corpus against their allegedly illegal detention made pursuant to the orders of the District Magistrate. Sikar (Rajasthani under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. Nathmal is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 550/1974 and his brother Bhagwandas is the petitioner in the other writ petition. The facts of the two cases are common and the points involved in them are identical. They are therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.2. There does not seem to be any infirmity in the due observance of the legal formalities under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. yet, for the reasons to be stated hereinafter, the detention of the petitioners is not legal and valid. The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the two petitions are these. From June 29. 1974 to 1st of July. 19...
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //