SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 967

M. M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Siel LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgment

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Civil Appeal Nos. 4726-4741/98 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 4162-4177/96)

Leave granted.

2. The appellants in these appeals have challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantaran Adhiniyam 1964 being U.P. Act 24 of 1964 which received the assent of the President on 17th October, 1964. The occasion for this challenge appears to have arisen on account of orders passed by the Controller of Molasses/Excise Commissioner, U.P. under Section 8 of the said Act read with Rule 22, and dated 13th of August 1993, 22nd of October, 1993 and 1st of Janu­ary, 1994.

3. Under Section 8 of the said Act the Controller may by order require the occupier of any sugar factory to sell and supply in the prescribed manner such quantity of molasses to such person, as may be specified in the order, and the occupier shall, notwithstanding any contract, comply with the order. Under Section 10 the occupier of a sugar facto­ry shall sell molasses in respect of which an order under Section 8 has been made at a price not exceeding that prescribed in the Sched­ule. Under sub-section (2) of Section 10 the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, amend the Sc





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top