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