SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd January, 1959.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, S.K. DAS, K.N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
M/s. Diwan Sugar & General Mills (Private) Ltd., and others, Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, Respondent.
1. The Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Rohana Kalan (Dist. Muzaffarnagar); 2. Sir Shadi Lal Sugar and General mills Ltd., Mansurpur (Dist. Muzaffarnagar), 627 3. M/s. L. H. Sugar Factories & Oil Mills Ltd., Kashipur (Dist. Nainital), 4. M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd., Simbhaoli (Dist. Meerut) 5. M/s. Sasamusa Sugar Works Ltd., Sasamusa (Dist. Saran), 6. M/s. Ratna Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Shahganj (Dist. Jaunpur), 7. M/s. L. H. Sugar Factories & Oil Mills Ltd., Pilibhit, 8. M/s. Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., Ramkola (Dist. Deoria), 9. M/s. H. R. Sugar Factory Ltd., Bareilly, 10. M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Bhatni (Dist. Deoria), 11. M/s. Punjab Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Ghughli, 12. M/s. Panji Sugar & General Mills Co., Bulandshahr, 13. M/s. Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co., Lid., Nawabganj, (Dist. Conda), Interveners.
Writ Petn. No. 134 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. P. Mukherjee, P. D. Himatsinghka, and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Petitioners; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent; M/s. K. P. Khaitan, K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, for Interveners 1 to 10; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Interveners 11 to 13.
Judgment
K. N. WANCHOO J.: This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the legality of the notification dated July 30, 1958, (hereinafter called the impugned notification), issued by the Government of India fixing the ex-factory price per maund of sugar produced in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar. It has been supported by two sets of interveners consisting of sugar factories in these areas who did not join the petition.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the Essential Commodities Act, (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 or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, to provide by order for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Section 3(2) further provided inter alia for controlling the price at which any essential commodity might be bought or sold. In exercise of these powers, the Central Government promulgated the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, (hereinafter called the Order) on August 27, 1955. Clause 5 of the Order gave power to the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to fix the price or the maximum price at which any sugar might be sold or delivered, and different prices might be fixed for different areas/factories or different types or grades of sugar. Such price or maximum price had to be fixed with due regard to various factors, with which we shall deal later. On June 27, 1958 the Central Government promulgated the sugar Export Promotion Ordinance, No. V of 1958, empowering it to appoint an export agency for carrying out the work of buying sugar in the Indian market and exporting the same to foreign markets and fixing the quantity of sugar for export. The Central Government was also authorised by that Ordinance to fix quotas apportioning the quantity of sugar to be supplied by each factory for export and levy an additional excise duty at the rate of Rs. 17 per maund on any factory failing to deliver its quota of sugar for export. On the same day, three notifications were issued: (1) fixing 50,000 tons of sugar as the quantity to be exported out of India during the period ending October 31, 1958, (2) appointing the Indian Sugar Mills Association, Calcutta, as the export agency, and (3) delegating the powers conferred on the Central Government to the Chief Director of Sugar and Vanaspati, Ministry of Food and Agriculture also. Then followed the impugned notification fixing ex-factory prices of sugar produced by the factories in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar. It is being challenged on the ground that the price fixed is considerably below the cost of production and ignores various factors affecting the cost of production and distribution of sugar including charges incidental to sale and distribution. The impugned notification is also attacked on the ground that it did not fix any price at which the persons purchasing sugar from the mills would sell it, so that it was open to the middleman who bought sugar from the factories to sell it at any price, us creating discrimination between factories and factories and between the producers selling sugar and the middlemen who buy sugar selling the same in their turn. It is also alleged that fixing of the price was arbitrary and did not take into account the cost of production of a large number of units in the country and did not provide for a fair and equitable distribution of sugar in the country at a price in any way related to the price at which the factories were compelled to sell their products. Consequently, the petitioners prayed for an appropriate order, direction
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.