https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196831 Clause 6A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 was described as a minimum-distance restriction for new sugar factories, but its operation depended on there being an existing sugar factory in statutory terms. The text states that a rival mill which had long ceased crushing operations, had been under liquidation, and was not operational when the appellant's project was processed could not be treated as an existing factory for that purpose. It also notes that equitable relief under Article 142 was used to preserve an established operational unit where closure would have served no useful public purpose, while adjusting cane allocation to protect competing interests. en-us Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 10:28:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196831 Clause 6A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 was described as a minimum-distance restriction for new sugar factories, but its operation depended on there being an existing sugar factory in statutory terms. The text states that a rival mill which had long ceased crushing operations, had been under liquidation, and was not operational when the appellant's project was processed could not be treated as an existing factory for that purpose. It also notes that equitable relief under Article 142 was used to preserve an established operational unit where closure would have served no useful public purpose, while adjusting cane allocation to protect competing interests. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196831