https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849 Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was treated as a concurrent-field measure under Entry 33 of List III, dealing with the supply, distribution and price of goods produced by controlled industries. On that construction, it did not by itself denude the State Legislature of competence to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 regulating molasses. The doctrine of occupied field did not exclude the State law, and any repugnancy under Article 254 stood cured by Presidential assent. The State provisions were therefore upheld as valid. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:26:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849 Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was treated as a concurrent-field measure under Entry 33 of List III, dealing with the supply, distribution and price of goods produced by controlled industries. On that construction, it did not by itself denude the State Legislature of competence to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 regulating molasses. The doctrine of occupied field did not exclude the State law, and any repugnancy under Article 254 stood cured by Presidential assent. The State provisions were therefore upheld as valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285849