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

2020 Supreme(SC) 317

ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R.SHAH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
WEST U. P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Mahesh Agarwal, Shubham Kulshreshtha, Yojit Mehra, Amartya Bhushan, Narender Kumar Verma, Malvika Kapila, Apoorv Khator, Tushar Bhushan, Amritya Bhushan, Anushree Menon, Mithun S., Vikas Mehta, E. C. Agrawala, Rohit K. Singh, Uday Tiwary, P. N. Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Saloni Tangri, Anshruta Maheshwari, Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Salil Seth, Anuj Dhingra, Neeraj Malik, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Syed Shahid Husain Rizvi, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Zeeshan Rizvi, Anas Rizvi, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Piyush Beriwal, Padmesh Mishra, D. L. Chidananda, Binu Tamta, Nikhil Rohatgi, Arkaj Kumar, Amlendu Jha Kumar, Sandeep Lala, Raj Bahadur, Pratap Venugopal, Surekha Raman, Akhil Abraham Ray, Vijay Valsan, For M/s K. J. John & Co., Ajay Majithia, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Sumit Goel, Ishan Nagar, Manu Bajaj, Raghav Bansal, Nikita Pandey, For M/s. Parekh & Co., Amol Chitale, Pragya Baghel, G .N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Digvijay Harichandan, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Vishal Gehrana, Nakul Gandhi, Shravan Sahny, Manik Karanjawala, AOR for M/s Karanjawala & Co., Vikash S. Wagmare, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Meenakshi S., Praveen Kumar, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Manik Karanjawala, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Vismai Rao, Prashant Kumar, For M/S. Ap & J Chambers, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Vikas Mehta, P. N. Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Parijat Sinha, Vishnu Sharma, Anupama Sharma, V. P. Pathak, Kumar Prasoon Ranjan, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ambika Atrey, Vidyottma, S. S. Ray, Rakhi Ray, Amar Dave, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Mayuri Nayyar Chawla, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Shruti Jose, Vishwajit Singh, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Akshat Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, Pankaj Gupta, Pradeep Misra, Bina Gupta, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Ritesh Agrawal, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Abhishek Atrey, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, C. K. Sucharita, M/S. Ap & J Chambers, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Prashant Kumar, Siddhartha Chowdhury, V. D. Khanna, Bimal Roy Jad, V. K. Verma, Vikas Mehta, Rohit K. Singh, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Vishwajit Singh, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Anil Katiyar, Praveen Kumar, P. K. Bhalla, T. Mahipal, Akshat Kumar, P. I. Jose, P. N. Gupta, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Manik Karanjawala, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Vikas Mehta, P. N. Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Parijat Sinha, Vishnu Sharma, Vishwajit Singh, M/S. Ap & J Chambers, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Akshat Kumar, Praveen Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, Pankaj Gupta, M/S. Parekh & Co., Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Manik Karanjawala, Pradeep Misra, Bina Gupta, Ritesh Agrawal, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Abhishek Atrey, Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, C. K. Sucharita, M/S. Ap & J Chambers, Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Prashant Kumar, Siddhartha Chowdhury, V. D. Khanna, Bimal Roy Jad, V. K. Verma, Vikas Mehta, Rohit K. Singh, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Vishwajit Singh, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Anil Katiyar, Praveen Kumar, T. Mahipal, K. R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Akshat Kumar, P. I. Jose, P. N. Gupta, Advocates

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

Having noted that there is a clear conflict between the two decisions of this Court, one in the case of Ch. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [AIR 1956 SC 676 = 1956 SCR 393 = 1956 SCJ 625] and another subsequent decision in the case of U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Others [(2004)5 SCC 430], a three Judge Bench of this Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench proposing the following questions of law to be considered by the larger Bench, preferably of a Bench consisting of seven Judges of this Court:

    (1) Whether by virtue of Article 246 read with Schedule VII List III Entry 33 of the Constitution the field is occupied by the Central legislation and hence the Central Government has the exclusive power to fix the price of sugarcane?

    (2) Whether Section 16 or any other provision of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers any power upon the State Government to fix the price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold?

    (3) If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then whether Section 16 or the said provision of the U.P. Sugarcane (Reg


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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