https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460863 The Supreme Court held that the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 did not by itself exclude resort to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, because the underlying offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 remained punishable up to seven years and could still satisfy the requirement of continuing unlawful activity. However, the Act could be invoked only on strict compliance with its safeguards, including valid prior approval and a proper nexus to organised crime. The approvals were found to have been granted mechanically and without proper application of mind in part, so the Act was wrongly applied to Kapil Lalit Nagpal, while its application was sustained against the other accused on the facts found. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:07:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460863 The Supreme Court held that the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 did not by itself exclude resort to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, because the underlying offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 remained punishable up to seven years and could still satisfy the requirement of continuing unlawful activity. However, the Act could be invoked only on strict compliance with its safeguards, including valid prior approval and a proper nexus to organised crime. The approvals were found to have been granted mechanically and without proper application of mind in part, so the Act was wrongly applied to Kapil Lalit Nagpal, while its application was sustained against the other accused on the facts found. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460863