Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the essential commodities act 1955 Sorted by: old Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 94 results (0.050 seconds)

Jan 12 1982 (HC)

P.B. Samant and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-12-1982

Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR367

..... , cement was included as a 'scheduled industry' as defined by section 3(1) of that act. by central government order dated 24th november, 1962, cement was included as an essential commodity under section 2(xi) of the essential commodities act, 1955. delegation of powers to the state government was effected by central government order dated 18th june, 1966. by reason of the increasingly acute shortage ..... no parallel can be drawn between that case and the present, where nexus between allotments and donations has unmistakably been established. it is impossible to hold that allotment of an essential commodity like cement for donation is reasonable or conducive to public interest. arbitrariness and mala fides are writ large. 49. it was urged by mr. sen that the petitioners' ..... from several other builders donations were received but no allocation was made. and the principle involved is that there can be no quid pro quo in allotment of an essential commodity, however, laudable the object of the charity donated to may be considered to be. it cannot be said in defence or mitigation that the donations were openly received ..... union of india. 3. it is the petitioners' case that as social workers and members of 'samajwadi manch', an organisation committed to seeing that sale and distribution of essential commodities is done in an equitable manner, they received several complaints from the public that cement was not available from the rationing offices either for building or repair work, that bona .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1982 (HC)

Ayodhya Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-16-1982

Reported in : AIR1983MP39

..... much water has flown on this question and the correctness of this decision is quite doubtful. there is a similar provision about appeal in the essential commodities act, 1955. section 6c provides for appeal to a judicial authority appointed by the m. p. state government, i.e. sessions judge, against the order ..... p., air 1978 sc 1 had held--'when the sessions judge was appointed an appellate authority by the state government under section 6c of the essential commodities act, what the state government did was to constitute art appellate authority in the sessions court over which the sessions judge presides. the sessions court ..... oral explanation of the grounds by the authorities is not sufficient. the supreme court in these cases were considering detention under the preventive detention act and article 22(5) enjoined that as soon as may be order of detention has to be communicated and the detenu to be afforded ..... to the high court and the order being 'a case decided' a revision against such order under section 139 (5), m. p. municipalities act is tenable under section 115, civil procedure code.'so the revisions are quite competent.5. now regarding merits first objection is that show cause notices were in ..... evicted. the applicants then preferred miscellaneous civil appeals nos. 37 and 38 of 1980 before the district judge, jabalpur, under section 9 of the act. by common order dated 12-3-1980. both the appeals have been dismissed by the district judge, holding that the orders of the estate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1982 (SC)

Sat Pal Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-05-1982

Reported in : AIR1982SC798; 1982(1)SCALE89; (1982)1SCC610; [1982]3SCR196; 1982(14)LC178(SC)

..... purpose of regulating its sale or supply. this contention has been negatived by the high court.3. it is true that the power conferred by section 3(1) of the essential commodities act, 1955, can be exercised by the central government or its delegate, only if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to provide for the regulation of any ..... rice bran. they also have an associate rice milling and husking plant which is run under the name and style of jagdamba rice mills, traori.2. section 3 of the essential commodities act, 10 of 1955, empowers the central government, under the circumstances stated in that section, to issue notified orders providing for the regulation of production, supply and distribution of any ..... order to sustain growth is food.7. we are therefore of the opinion that rice bran being a foodstuff within the meaning of section 2(a)(v) of the act, it is an essential commodity and therefore, the power conferred by section 3 can be used to regulate its production, sale or supply.8. the affidavits filed on behalf of the state of ..... which it was held that rice bran is 'cattle fodder' within the meaning of section 2(a)(i) of the act. we need not go into that question since we are of the view that rice bran, being a foodstuff, is an essential commodity.10. the decisions in the state of bombay v. virkumar gulabchand shah [1952] 2 s.c.r. 877 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1982 (HC)

Ratnaraj Thangraj Vs. Deputy Controller of Rationing and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-12-1982

Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR475

..... order dated february 6, 1982 passed by the learned principal judge of the bombay city civil court, bombay, as the judicial authority appointed under section 6-c of the essential commodities act, 1955 (act no. 10 of 1955), whereby he dismissed the appeal filed is the petitioner, namely, miscellaneous appeal no. 6 of 1982, as being barred by limitation.2. the petitioner is a dealer in ..... oil seized by the police under a panchanama. the petitioner was also arrested and subsequently charged with having committed offences under the aforesaid orders read with section 7 of the essential commodities act.4. by an order dated november 24, 1981 the first respondent, the deputy controller of rationing, ordered the said entire quantity of 644 kilograms to be confiscated to the ..... government. under section 6-c(1) of the essential commodities act an appeal against an order of confiscation passed under section 6-a of the said act lies to a judicial authority appointed by the state government concerned, in this case the state of maharashtra. the judicial authority whom the ..... 500 kilograms of edible oil is required to take out a licence under the said orders in addition to a gumaste licence and a licence under the bombay municipal corporation act, (bombay act no. iii of 1888).3. on october 23, 1981 the third respondent, namely, the inspector of police, crime branch (control), c.i.d., bombay, a long with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1982 (HC)

Vikas Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-01-1982

Reported in : AIR1982All236

..... allot what has been described as 'concessional rate cultural variety of white printing paper' used for the purpose of fabricating exercise books.2. 'paper' is an essential commodity as defined in section 2(vii) of the essential commodities act, 1955, under the scheme of allocation of paper to various states, the controller (paper), government of india makes statewise allocation of paper of the aforesaid variety as ..... of the group.2. such differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the act.3. there must be a nexus between the differentiation, which is the basis of the classification and the object of the act.' we will assume that the classification in the case in hand was founded on intelligible differentia, in that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1982 (SC)

Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-03-1982

Reported in : AIR1982SC902; 1982(1)SCALE165; (1982)2SCC150; [1982]3SCR371; 1982(14)LC503(SC)

..... protection to the farmers who have undertaken raising of sugarcane crop, the central government issued the control order in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955. by clause 3 of this order, power was conferred on the central government to fix minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by producers of sugar for sugarcane purchased ..... it was urged that the sugarcane control order was issued in exercise of power conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act. one of the objects sought to be achieved by the essential commodites act, 1955, is to ensure availability at fair price the essential commodity to the consumers. it was further urged that one can visualise that the power to fix minimum price or ..... sugarcane as also the consumers of the essential commodity. number of regulations have been enacted almost since the dawn of independence to regulate this powerful combination of manufacturers of sugar and khandsari sugar all over the country for ..... growers. producers of sugar and khandsari sugar constitute a powerful trade lobby, the fact of which one can take judicial notice. sugar being an essential commodity occasionally kept in short supply and being a commodity needed for consumption by almost the entire population, the powerful industry magnates in this field are in a position to dominate both the growers of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1982 (HC)

V. Kuppusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Depart ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-12-1982

Reported in : (1982)2MLJ278

..... view of the acute shortage of food-stuffs in the country, the government is bound to take all effective steps to implement the provisions of the essential commodities act (1955) and the various orders issued under section 3, thereof, from time to time. the conferal of the power of suspension of the licence of ..... state his objections.4. it is true that under section 23(4), which came to be introduced by the tamil nadu prohibition (second amendment) act li of 1981, the authority concerned is empowered to suspend the licence without affording an opportunity to the holder of the licence to state his objections ..... any other point before me. in substantiation of his submission, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the entirety of section 23 of the act and would submit that under section 23(3) the power of suspension could be exercised only after giving an opportunity to the holder of the ..... charges, against the petitioner.2. mr. g. gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would attack sub-section (4) of section 23 of the act under which the impugned order has been passed by stating that the said provision is violative of article 14 of the constitution of india. he has ..... petitioner on 27th january, 1982, by the assistant commissioner (excise), thanjavur; and opining that a prima facie case for violation of the provisions of the act and certain rules, 1981, and condition no. 4 of the licence, the second respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner. it has been clearly stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1982 (HC)

V. Kuppusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-12-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Mad222

..... in view of the acute shortage of foodstuffs in the country, the government is bound to take all effective steps to implement the provisions of the essential commodities act (1955) and the various orders issued under s.e thereof from time to time. the conferral of the power of suspension of the licence of a ..... permit to state his objections'.it is true that under section 23 (4), which came to be introduced by the tamil nadu prohibition (second amendment) act 51 of 1981, the authority concerned is empowered to suspend the licence to state his objections. if section 23 (4) is taken to be a taken ..... urged any other point before me. in substation of his submission, the learned counsel draws my attention to the entirety of section 23 of the act and would submit that under section 23 (3) the power of suspension could be exercised only after giving an opportunity to the holder of the licence ..... disposal of the charges against the petitioner.2. mr.g.gopinatha learned counsel for the petitioner, would attack subsection (4) if section 23 of the act, under which the impugned order has been passed, by stating that the said provision is violative of art 14 of the constitution of the india. he ..... petitioner on 27-1-1982, by the assistant commissioner (excise) thanjavur, and opining that a prima facie case for violation of the provisions of the act and certain rules 1981, and condition no.4 of the licence, the second respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner. it has been clearly stated that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 1982 (SC)

P.P. Enterprises and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-1982

Reported in : AIR1982SC1016; 1982(1)SCALE184; (1982)2SCC33; [1982]3SCR510; 1982(14)LC236(SC)

..... took up the first point and urged that the impugned order is not covered by any of the clauses of section 3 of the essential commodities act.5. section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955, insofar as it is material for the purposes of this case, reads :3. (1) if the central government is of opinion ..... effect to the legislative intent of public welfare. so construed, the impugned order is fully protected and is not ultra vires section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955.7. this leads us to the second contention, namely, the impugned order being violative of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution inasmuch as ..... 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, or for securing any essential commodity ..... 1. in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955, sugar control order 1966 was issued by the government of india, ministry of agriculture. clause 5 of that order ..... to challenge the constitutional validity of the said order on three grounds ; (1) the impugned order is not covered by section 3 of the essential commodities act and is ultra vires; (2) the impugned order imposes unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on their trade and so it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1982 (HC)

Md. Zazmul Ahasen Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-19-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal546

..... herein visited the shop of the petitioner for inspection. it is alleged that during inspection the petitioner could not produce hooks of accounts relating to rationed commodities. stock books, daily sales register, non-drawal register and cash memos could not be produced for the period of six months up to 19th july, ..... to that period were not produced. there was a further allegation that the petitioner had inflated falsely the quantity of rationed commodities distributed by the petitioner in his weekly returns and that the petitioner had shown bogus distribution and had made unauthorised disposal of stocks of modified ..... rationed commodities. a notice to show cause why the dealership of the petitioner should not be terminated was issued by the respondent no. 5 on ..... the show cause notice and thereafter the case was heard.7. in view of the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the respondents have acted mala fide or that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in this case.8. the petitioner has also urged ..... legality and validity of the order dated 28th sept., 1981, passed by the respondent no. 5. the petitioner has urged that the respondents have acted mala fide against the petitioner and the respondents have stopped supply of modified ration articles to the petitioner on and from 22nd july, 1980, even .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //