https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157494 A State law regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane was upheld because sugarcane was treated as raw material within the State's legislative field, distinct from Parliament's control over the sugar manufacturing industry. Repugnancy was rejected since the Central enactments and the State scheme operated in different areas, and no valid repeal of the State law was shown. The provisions were also sustained against article 14 because the Cane Commissioner's discretion was guided by statutory criteria, rules, consultation and appellate control. The co-operative sale and reserved-area arrangements were held to be voluntary and reasonable restrictions under articles 19, 31 and 301, so the challenge failed in full. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157494 A State law regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane was upheld because sugarcane was treated as raw material within the State's legislative field, distinct from Parliament's control over the sugar manufacturing industry. Repugnancy was rejected since the Central enactments and the State scheme operated in different areas, and no valid repeal of the State law was shown. The provisions were also sustained against article 14 because the Cane Commissioner's discretion was guided by statutory criteria, rules, consultation and appellate control. The co-operative sale and reserved-area arrangements were held to be voluntary and reasonable restrictions under articles 19, 31 and 301, so the challenge failed in full. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157494