REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE Appellant

V/S

HAIDARALI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUNN V. ILLIONOIS [REFERRED TO]
MARSHALL FIELD AND CO. V. CLARK [REFERRED TO]
PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN [REFERRED TO]
LEO NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [REFERRED TO]
WICHITA RAILROAD AND LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
J.W. HAMPTON JR. AND CO. V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS [REFERRED TO]
OPP. COTTON MILLS INC. V. ADMINISTRATOR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BROADCASTING V. U.S. [REFERRED TO]
YAKUS V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
CINCINNATI,W. AND S.R. CO. V. CLINTON COUNTRY,POULTRY CASE [REFERRED TO]
CURRIN V. WALLACE [REFERRED TO]
MULFORD V. SMITH [REFERRED TO]
U.S. V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE INC. [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIBAI V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
UNITED STATES V. SHAUGHNESSY [REFERRED TO]
AMERICAN P. AND L. CO. V. SECURITIES AND E. CORN. [REFERRED TO]
AHEY V. MALLONEE [REFERRED TO]
N B KHARE VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND DELHI LAWS ACT 1912 VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. NATH MAL [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR BAGLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
EDWARD MILLS CO LIMITED BEAWAR VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order in this reference shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Reference no. 99 of 1956.

(2.) THESE two references have been made by the City and Additional District magistrate, Indore City, in ten criminal cases in which certain persons are being prosecuted for having sold iron and steel and iron and steel scrap at above the controlled prices fixed by the respective Controllers under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act,. 1946. During the course of these cases the accused raised the plea, based upon a decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhananial gulzari Mal Ltd. v. Union of India, Criminal Writ Case No. 36-D of 1954 decided on 14th February 1955 (A), that the Control Orders were unreasonable restrictions under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. The learned Magistrate after giving his opinion that the impugned clauses of the Control Orders passed by the central Government ''were ultra vires", referred the cases under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the determination of "the constitutional point involved.

(3.) WE have heard two separate arguments in the two batches of cases connected with the control of iron and steel and the control of iron and steel scrap respectively. For the State Government Shri Chitale contended that the Control orders, both in their content and procedure, were perfectly valid and binding, while on behalf of the accused Shri S. D. Sanghi and Shri D. P. Bhargava contended that Clause 11-B of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution)Order, 1941, and clause 8 of the Iron and Steel. (Scrap Control) Order, 1943, were illegal and ultra vires.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE Vs. HAIDARALI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address