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

1994 Supreme(SC) 1003

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, K.RAMASWAMY
Sitaram And Brothers – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, I.MAKVANA, RACHNA JOSHI ISSAR

JUDGMENT

The appeals arise from Writ Petition No. 1808 of 1988 and batch dated 18-8-89 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court following its earlier judgment dated May 17, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1986 and batch. In the High Court, S. 17A and class Molasses added to S.41 (2) (d) of the Rajasthan Excise. Act, 1950 as amended by the Rajasthan Excise Amendment Act 8, 1985 were impugned. The Division Bench after exhaustive consideration of all the controversies declared that the Amendment Act 8 of 1985 was enacted by the State Legislature under Entry 33 (a) of List III (concurrent list) of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the State Legislature was competent to enact the said Amendment Act except the Condition No. 3(1) (II) and 3(2) of the licenses in Form M-1 as repugnant to the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (7) of the Molasses Control Order. The State did nor prefer any appeal as regards the declaration of the said aforesaid provision to be ultra vires of the State Legislature. But being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Division Bench the appellants had sought leave and this court granted leave under S. 136 of the Constitution.

2. I






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