https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192680 Storage-limit directions under the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 were held to fall within Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because the provision authorises regulation of storage and trade in essential commodities to secure equitable distribution and fair prices. The restrictions on sugar dealers were treated as regulatory rather than prohibitive, since they controlled stock levels to curb hoarding and black-marketing without banning trade, and were therefore a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). Differential storage limits were also upheld under Article 14 because the classification rested on relevant local conditions, including Calcutta's role as a feeder centre and transit realities. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jun 2017 14:48:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192680 Storage-limit directions under the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 were held to fall within Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 because the provision authorises regulation of storage and trade in essential commodities to secure equitable distribution and fair prices. The restrictions on sugar dealers were treated as regulatory rather than prohibitive, since they controlled stock levels to curb hoarding and black-marketing without banning trade, and were therefore a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). Differential storage limits were also upheld under Article 14 because the classification rested on relevant local conditions, including Calcutta's role as a feeder centre and transit realities. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192680