<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (8) TMI 302 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172473</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;foodstuffs&quot; in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was construed broadly and purposively to include cooked food, because the statute is aimed at regulating the production, supply, distribution and price of essential commodities and ensuring fair availability. On price control, fixation of maximum prices was treated as an executive function that courts will not recast on a cost-accounting basis unless patent arbitrariness, hostile discrimination or manifest unreasonableness is shown. No item-wise guarantee of profit was required, and the challenge under Article 14 failed. The catering price-control orders were upheld and the petitions were dismissed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:53:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (8) TMI 302 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172473</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;foodstuffs&quot; in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was construed broadly and purposively to include cooked food, because the statute is aimed at regulating the production, supply, distribution and price of essential commodities and ensuring fair availability. On price control, fixation of maximum prices was treated as an executive function that courts will not recast on a cost-accounting basis unless patent arbitrariness, hostile discrimination or manifest unreasonableness is shown. No item-wise guarantee of profit was required, and the challenge under Article 14 failed. The catering price-control orders were upheld and the petitions were dismissed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>