Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the essential commodities act 1955 Year: 1957 Page 1 of about 105 results (0.060 seconds)

Feb 19 1957 (HC)

P.K.N. Abdul Mazid Vs. the State of Madras and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1957

Reported in : AIR1957Mad551

..... passed by the collector.7. the madras rico mills licensing order, 1955 was issued under madras act 29 of 1949. these rules were amended by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the essentials commodities act, 1955 (act 10 of 1955). this amendment was ordered on 31-5-1956. rule 11-a ..... under article 226 of the constitution by the issue of a writ of certiorari and (3) in any event since the relief of certiorari is essentially a discretionary relief, this court, in the circumstances of this case, should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by setting aside ..... the instructions issued by the government in january 1956 apparently fell within the scope of rule 2 (2) of the madras rice mills licensing order, 1955, which vested in the state government a power to issue general directions to licensing authorities. the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent urged that had ..... the madras rice mills licensing order was quite different from that of the motor vehicles act under which arose the case that was decided in w. a. no. 107 of 1955 (mad)(a). in writ pp. 107 of 1955 (mad)(a) it was pointed out that the petitioner had a statutory right to ..... after the introduction of the scheme of licensing rice mills under the madras act 29 of 1949, the petitioner obtained the requisite licence. the licensing is now regulated by the madras rice mills licensing order, 1955.2. on 1-8-1955, the third respondent bala-krishnan chettiar applied to the collector for ,a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1957 (HC)

Ramrichpal Agarwalla and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-12-1957

Reported in : AIR1958Cal257,62CWN561

..... said order, and for other reliefs. all parties were restrained by an interim injunction from removing any goods from the mill premises.4. the essential commodities act 1955 (act x of 1955) is a central act, which came into operation on 1-4-1955. trade and commerce within the state is a state subject (list ii, item 26 of the 7th schedule) but it must be read ..... exercise of the powers conferred on the government of west bengal under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the essential commodities act. 1955 (x of 1955), read with clause (b) of section 5 of the said act and order no. sro 1925 of the government of india dated 7-6-1957, the governor is pleased to make this order requiring you ..... essential commodities'-- (1) if the central government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for ..... the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in, certain commodities.' in order to appreciate the argument made in this case, it will be necessary to consider several provisions of the essential commodities act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), which are set out hero under:'3. 'powers to control production, supply distribution, etc., of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1957 (HC)

Public Prosecutor Vs. M.B. Buhari and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-1957

Reported in : 1958CriLJ387

..... by the state against the order passed by the chief presidency magistrate in c.c. no. 4324 of 1956.2. the respondents are charged under section 7(2) of the essential commodities act, 1955, read with section 4 (1) of the vegetable oil products control order, 1947, the circumstances under which the prosecution was launched are these.3. under the directions from the deputy ..... laid down in the rules framed under or. 4 (1) of the vegetable oil products control order, 1947. stocking, therefore, of such commodity for sale is liable to be dealt with under section 7 (2) of the essential commodities act, act x of 1955.4. under section 4 (1) of the vegetable oil products control order, no producer to whom the order applies shall stock or ..... accepting or rejecting the notification of the same in the madras police gazette. in the appeal before me the learned counsel, who appears for the respondent, does not dispute the act that on account of the amendment, any person who stocks also will he liable and ha is not seeking to support his acquittal on the ground on which the lower .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1957 (HC)

State of Manipur (Now Union Territory) Vs. Chunilal Saraogi and anr.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Sep-03-1957

..... an attempt to transport the chira in contravention of the provisions of section 3(2) of the manipur food grains (movement) control order, 1956, punishable under section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955.13. as regards punishment i think that in the circumstances of the case, and the fact that i propose to order forfeiture of the entire quantity of the chira, a ..... maunds in 33 bags) on 5-3-56, in contravention of the provisions of s, 3 of the manipur foodgrains (movement) control order, 1956, punishable under section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955.2. the facts are simple and not much in dispute. there is also evidence to prove them. section 3 of the above-mentioned order of 1956 runs thus:3(1 ..... . it is impossible to accept that he was not aware of the whole position or that he did not know that the permit under colour of which he wanted to act, had already expired. a permit in the name of another person cannot be used by a different person is more than obvious. the very fact that the chira was hidden .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1957 (HC)

State of Manipur (Now Union Territory) Vs. Chunilal Saraogi and anr.

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Sep-03-1957

Reported in : 1958CriLJ1487

..... an attempt to transport the chira in contravention of the provisions of section 3(2) of the manipur food grains (movement) control order, 1956, punishable under section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955.13. as regards punishment i think that in the circumstances of the case, and the fact that i propose to order forfeiture of the entire quantity of the chira, a ..... maunds in 33 bags) on 5-3-56, in contravention of the provisions of s, 3 of the manipur foodgrains (movement) control order, 1956, punishable under section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955.2. the facts are simple and not much in dispute. there is also evidence to prove them. section 3 of the above-mentioned order of 1956 runs thus:3(1 ..... . it is impossible to accept that he was not aware of the whole position or that he did not know that the permit under colour of which he wanted to act, had already expired. a permit in the name of another person cannot be used by a different person is more than obvious. the very fact that the chira was hidden .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1957 (HC)

P.K.N. Abdul Mazid Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretar ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1957

Reported in : (1957)2MLJ1

..... jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the collector.7. the madras rice mills licensing order, 1955, was issued under madras act (xxix of 1949). these rules were amended by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the essential commodities act, 1955 (x of 1955). this amendment was ordered on 31st may, 1956. rule 11-a of the madras rice mills ..... jurisdiction this court could exercise under article 226 of the constitution by the issue of a writ of certiorari and (3) in any event, since the relief of certiorari is essentially a discretionary relief, this court in the circumstances of this case, should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the orders passed by the government ..... case. he pointed out that the scheme of the madras rice mills licensing order was quite different from that of the motor vehicles act under which arose the case that was decided in writ appeal no. 107 of 1955. it was pointed out that the petitioner had a statutory right to be heard before the statutory authority exercised its jurisdiction. the learned ..... , tiruvadanai taluk, ramanathapuram district. after the introduction of the scheme of licensing rice mills under the madras act (xxix of 1949), the petitioner obtained the requisite licence. the licensing is now regulated by the madras rice mills licensing order, 1955.2. on 1st august, 1955, the third respondent balakrishnan chettiar applied to the collector for a license to work a rice mill of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1957 (HC)

Indian Sugars and Refineries Ltd. Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-18-1957

Reported in : AIR1958Kant64; AIR1958Mys64; ILR1957KAR359; (1958)36MysLJ34

..... act, xx of 1949 nugatory. in order to determine ..... that these acts have made the madras sugar factories control ..... the aforesaid purpose are the essential goods (declaration and regulation of tax on sale or purchase) act (lii of 1952) which came into operation on 9-8-52, essential commodities act, x of 1955, order dated 27-8-55 passed pursuant to the essential commodities act whereby sugarcane became a controlled commodity and industries development and regulation act, lxv of 1951 (by this act sugar became a controlled commodity).the learned advocate contended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1957 (HC)

In Re: E.T. Palaniappa Chettiar and Co., Pollachi by Partners E.T. Pal ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-16-1957

Reported in : AIR1957Mad660; 1957CriLJ1149

..... the previous cotton control order of 1950 under the time expired act xxiv of 1946.8. therefore he has made this reference to this court for decision on the two ..... . under that act, the cotton control order, 1955, was made on 13-7-1955.clause 1 (d) of the first cotton control order of 1955, stated 'the cotton control order of 1950, is hereby repealed' ..... promulgated by virtue of the powers taken under the essential supplies (temporary powers) act, xxiv of 1946 can this be done?7. the learned additional first class magistrate, poliachi, carefully analysed the matter and came to the conclusion that these prosecutions could not be valid because the subsequent essential commodities act of 1955, act x of 1955, did not repeal and save the provisions of ..... came into force on 26-1-1955; in other words, the ordinance was passed so that there might not be a gap. but it is important to note that this ordinance did not mention raw cotton. then this ordinance was repealed by the essential commodities act x of 1955, which included in its scope as an essential commodity raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1957 (SC)

Hooghly Jute Mills Vs. their Employees

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-29-1957

Reported in : AIR1957SC376; (1957)ILLJ485SC

..... vice-mistry after the turbine closed down, but it was found after observation that he had no aptitude for this type of work and should therefore the treated as redundant. acting upon this report the manager of the mills on 15-9-52 gave notice to nanilal mukherjee dispensing with his services as from 30-9-52. he was paid : -- (1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1957 (HC)

State Vs. Haidarali

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : May-03-1957

Reported in : AIR1957MP179; 1957CriLJ1266

..... -delegate there has been at any stage conferment of naked and arbitrary power, uncontrolled by any set standards or indication of policy in addition to the act.33. the essential supplies (temporary powers) act, 1946, enumerates the essential commodities in respect of which the powers to control the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in, is to be provided. among them are ..... of the act was questioned while it appears that the decision ..... which these controls have been imposed. the patent act under which the controls were initiated is the well-known essential supplies (temporary powers) act, 1946. that act, however, has been before the supreme court on more than one occasion, and in hari shankar bagla v. state of madhya pradesh, 1955-1 scr 380: (air ,1954 sc 465) (b), the validity of sections 3 and 4 ..... to be exercised arbitrarily or at the sweet will of the person on whom it was conferred.similarly, in 1955-1 scr 380: (air 1954 sc 465 (b), the regulation of movement of cotton textiles was upheld because the purpose of the act was to achieve equitable distribution. in all these cases we find that the supreme court looks to the parent .....

Tag this Judgment!


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