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

1951 Supreme(Bom) 40

R.S.BAVDEKAR, H.K.CHAINANI
Agarwal, Ayengar & Co. Ltd. and Ors – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


Judgment

Bavdekar, J.

1. His Lordship, after narrating facts and dealing with points not material to the report, proceeded :] The learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellants, contends, however, that Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, even after the amendment of the Act, by which cotton and certain other commodities were added to the definition of essential commodities in the Act, did not permit the Central Government to direct by an Order that there should be exercised by the Textile Commissioner control over the supply or the prices of lickerin wire. He says that the section merely permits the Central Government by a notified Order to regulate the production, distribution and supply of an essential commodity and trade and commerce therein. It does not permit directly control over the production, distribution and supply of commodities, which are not essential commodities, nor does it permit the regulation of the trade and commerce in such non-essential commodities. If we look at the section itself, it is obvious that the commodities, of which the production, distribution and supply is permitted to be regulated, are essential commodities; an




































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