Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > SC > Criminal Law > Essential Commodities Act > NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC, Vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THETEXTILES COMMISSIONE



Please Wait ..


NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC, Vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THETEXTILES COMMISSIONE

Posted on 23 June 2009 by jyoti

Title

NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC, Vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THETEXTILES COMMISSIONE



Coram

RAMASWAMY, K.



Act

Essential Commodities Act



Subject

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 :

Textile (Control) Order, 1986/Textile (Development and Regulation) Order
1993-Notification dated 29.5.1993-Manufacturers of hank yam-Obligation on
to produce the yarn-



Citation

, 1996( 3 )SCR 882, 1996( 8 )SCC 673, 1996( 3 )SCALE442 , 1996( 6 )JT 21



Head Notes

Held, when the past liability was sought to be wiped out for the period
from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would
apply to the previous period from April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6774 of 1996.



Judgment Made On

25/03/1996

JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6775-6810 OF 1996
[@ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1107/96, 17717-25/95, 1824-25/96,
1906/96, 20810/95, 23368-70/95, 26177/95, 27110/95,
27112-15/95, 27116-17/95, 27964/95, 28425-26/95,
4371/96, 5351-56/96, 8961-64/96 [CC 627/96], 8968
[CC 915/96], 8969-74 [CC 916/96) of 1996)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted,
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
When the matter had come up in the first instance
before another Bench in S.L.P.(C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to
the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor
General, by order dated September 25,1995 this Court passed
the order as under:
"In view of the statement made by
learned Additional Solicitor
General that if the current
obligation pursuant to the
Notification dated March 20, 1995
is carried out by the petitioner,
the respondents will not hold them
liable for any past liability, the
petitioner does not intend to press
the SLP which is accordingly
disposed or as withdrawn. The
learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner
has not raised any objection to its
prospective liability under the
said Notification dated March 20,
1995."
Subsequently, the appellant claimed the same relief. In
view of the liability which sought to be avoided by the
appellants the Union of India had filed a Review Petition
before the Bench which came to be dismissed by order dated
March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in these
cases, the same order should equally follow. The learned
counsel for the Union of India seeks to contend that the
concession relates to the period from April 1, 1993 to March
31, 1995. The liability now sought to be wiped out relates
in addition to the above it also relates to the period from
April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992. He sought to make that
distinction and contends that the matter involves further
investigation. We do not find any force in the submission
made by the learned counsel When the past liability was
sought to be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to
March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would apply to
the previous period from April 1, 1990 to September 30,
1992.
Under those circumstances, all the appeals are allowed
and the orders are quashed as prayed for. However, the order
of this Court does not preclude the Government to take such
appropriate steps as are open to them under law for any
future liability. No costs.





Tags :-    nagammai   cotton   mills   etcvsassttdirectorregional   office   thetextiles   commissione      

Read / Write Comments



NUJS

Quick Links



Browse By Category





web analytics