https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157437 The State advised cane price had no statutory force because the term "advised" made it recommendatory, not a binding price fixation enforceable by coercive steps. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 was held not to confer an implied power on the State Government to fix sugarcane price, as the power was not expressly provided and the legislative context showed it was left out. The repugnancy question with the Central law was left open. The State could still facilitate voluntary negotiations on price, but any resulting agreement would bind only by consent, not compulsion. en-us Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157437 The State advised cane price had no statutory force because the term "advised" made it recommendatory, not a binding price fixation enforceable by coercive steps. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 was held not to confer an implied power on the State Government to fix sugarcane price, as the power was not expressly provided and the legislative context showed it was left out. The repugnancy question with the Central law was left open. The State could still facilitate voluntary negotiations on price, but any resulting agreement would bind only by consent, not compulsion. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157437