TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether cotton yarn fell within the expression "cotton textiles" so that the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 continued to apply to it under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; (ii) Whether the impugned price-fixation notifications were arbitrary or invalid as unreasonable restrictions on trade and property rights; (iii) Whether the canalisation of yarn distribution through specified channels was valid.
Issue (i): Whether cotton yarn fell within the expression "cotton textiles" so that the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948 continued to apply to it under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Analysis: The expression "cotton textiles" was construed in its legislative and commercial setting. The Order itself treated cloth and yarn as covered by the term "textiles", and earlier control orders, tariff legislation and other enactments had consistently included yarn within textile regulation. The Court also relied on dictionary meaning, prior statutory usage, and long-established administrative practice to hold that yarn is not excluded merely because it is an intermediate product.
Conclusion: Cotton yarn was held to fall within "cotton textiles", and the 1948 Order continued to apply to it under the later statute.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned price-fixation notifications were arbitrary or invalid as unreasonable restrictions on trade and property rights.
Analysis: The controlling power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was held to permit price regulation to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The concept of fair price was treated as context-dependent and not limited to a cost-plus formula in every case. The Court held that, in conditions of shortage, hoarding and abnormal price rise, the authority could adopt an empirical method, taking into account prevailing market conditions, supply position, and public interest, without being bound to a rigid formula of production cost and profit margin. The fixation was found to leave a reasonable margin and not to be demonstrably arbitrary.
Conclusion: The price-fixation notifications were upheld as valid and not violative of the constitutional guarantees invoked.
Issue (iii): Whether the canalisation of yarn distribution through specified channels was valid.
Analysis: The distribution scheme was treated as a regulatory measure designed to secure proper distribution and fair availability of yarn. The channels included State nominees and user organisations, and the scheme was supported by the statutory power to direct sale or delivery to specified persons. The Court held that the restrictions were linked to preventing hoarding, speculation and profiteering, and that the availability of a limited appellate remedy further supported the regulatory framework.
Conclusion: The canalisation of distribution was held to be a reasonable restriction and valid.
Final Conclusion: The regulatory scheme for cotton yarn, including price control and distribution control, was sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power in the public interest, and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity is part of an essential class of goods and the statute empowers control to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, the State may regulate price and distribution on an empirical basis in the public interest, provided the restriction is not arbitrary or excessive.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
