<?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>1961 (9) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185181</link>
    <description>Clause 5(e) of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961 was upheld as intra vires section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because it only allowed the licensing authority to treat co-operative status as one relevant factor, with a rational nexus to equitable distribution and fair prices. However, the refusal of a licence on the basis of executive instructions designed to exclude private dealers and create a monopoly for co-operative societies was inconsistent with the Order, discriminatory, and contrary to Articles 14 and 19. The impugned licensing action was therefore invalid, and reconsideration according to law was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:47:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (9) TMI 78 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185181</link>
      <description>Clause 5(e) of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961 was upheld as intra vires section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because it only allowed the licensing authority to treat co-operative status as one relevant factor, with a rational nexus to equitable distribution and fair prices. However, the refusal of a licence on the basis of executive instructions designed to exclude private dealers and create a monopoly for co-operative societies was inconsistent with the Order, discriminatory, and contrary to Articles 14 and 19. The impugned licensing action was therefore invalid, and reconsideration according to law was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>