TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds East Punjab Molasses Act Amendment 1973</h1> <h3>PUNJAB TRADERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB</h3> PUNJAB TRADERS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB - 1990 AIR 2300, 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 499, 1991 (1) SCC 86, 1990 (2) SCALE 603 Issues involved: Challenge to constitutionality of Amendment Act 1973 u/s Article 304(b) of the Constitution, applicability of the impugned provisions on the appellants' trade, requirement of previous sanction of the President for the restrictions imposed.Summary:The Supreme Court judgment dealt with an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment Act, 1973. The appellants contested that the amendment, which expanded the definition of 'molasses' to include khandsari sugar, required the previous sanction of the President under Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition stating that the appellants were not aggrieved by the amendment as their business was already subject to the Principal Act. The appellants argued that the Amendment Act imposed direct restrictions on their trade, affecting the freedom of commerce. The respondents contended that the provisions were regulatory and did not need the President's sanction.The Amendment Act introduced changes to the Principal Act, including defining 'molasses' and 'khandsari unit', expanding the Controller's powers, and regulating storage and supply of molasses. The main contention was whether the 1973 amendment significantly restricted the appellants' business beyond the existing law. The Court analyzed the impact of the amendment on the appellants' trade and the necessity of Presidential sanction for the new provisions.The Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Amendment Act was clarificatory and did not require the President's previous sanction. It was deemed that the Principal Act, being an 'existing law', covered the appellants' trade adequately, and the 1973 amendment did not substantially alter their situation. The judgment emphasized the understanding of the statute in trade practices and the legal interpretation of the provisions. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the Amendment Act 1973 in relation to the appellants' business.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the constitutionality of the Amendment Act 1973 in relation to the appellants' trade, emphasizing the existing legal framework and the regulatory nature of the provisions. The decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach in interpreting trade laws and the significance of previous Presidential sanction for imposing significant restrictions on commerce.
TaxTMI 