Essential Commodities Special Provisions Act 1981 Section 7 - Judgment Search Results

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakashchand Bansilal Kankaria,

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2004(1)MhLj806

..... time and the minimum sentence laid down under the act in my opinion it would ..... three months for the special reasons to be recorded in the judgment the said discretion has been taken away by section 7 of the essential commodities special provisions act 1981 considering the passage of .....

Shri Pandurang Sagun Salgaonkar Vs. State

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1999CriLJ104

..... count of want of sanction 5 section 12 a of the essential commodities act as amended by the essential commodities special provisions act 1981 empowers the state government to constitute special courts for the purpose of ..... for the offences under section 120 b 408 read with section 120 b and also under section 3 read with section 7 of the essential commodities act read with section 120 b of the .....

Dilip Pandurang Kamath and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through C ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1193

..... that at the relevant time the special court appointed under the essential commodities special provisions act 1981 has ceased to be a special court under the essential commodities act since the act has lapsed and was not further ..... in sections 6 7 of the act as already noticed earlier also show that the words in section 7 that the prosecution for any offence shall be instituted only in special court .....

Purthviraj Chandrakant Shinde and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR889

..... 1981 act 18 of 1981 was passed to amend certain provisions of the act under the act 18 of 1981 the offences were made non bailable by amending section 10 a of the essential commodities act 1955 act 18 of 1981 ..... act 18 of 1981 stand deleted it will not be correct to say that all the offences under the essential commodities act 1955 would be bailable when the special act is not making any provision .....

Chandrakant Pinayamal Motwani Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2000CriLJ1935

..... provisions of sections 360 and 361 of cr p c do not conflict with the provisions of the rajasthan excise act 19 there is no doubt the essential commodities act ..... recorded by the iind additional sessions judge kolhapur on 7 11 1992 in special case no 11 of 1988 against the appellant ..... place to mention here that earlier before the amendment of 1981 there was a proviso under which the court had discretion .....

Emperor Vs. Ranchhodlal Hirabhai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1948)50BOMLR295

the central government to control production supply distribution etc of essential commodities which powers were the same as those which were and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain essential commodities therefore it was that the ordinances nos xviii and xx to enact in the main body of the act any special provisions for the orders which were deemed to be made orders and section 5 of that ordinance provided until other provisions are made under this ordinance any order whether notified or untenable because the whole object of section 17 of the act is to put orders deemed to be made on the which provides if any person contravenes any order made under section 3 he shall be punishablein the manner provided in that of the accused by mr amin that looking to section 7 of the act it is clear that what is made

Dr. Narote Amol Sadashivrao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...

Court : Mumbai

everyone therefore selection of the right calibre of students is essential in public interest at the level of specialized postgraduate education perhaps to a slightly lesser extent than in the super specialities but the element of public interest in having the most and ors 1988 4 scc 147 has held that the provisions for reservation is only an enabling provision and consequently no is not acceptable the perusal of the provisions of 1998 act would indicate that the same primarily relate to establishment and in what circumstances cannot therefore be answered without looking into section 31 and giving it primacy over the provisions of section powers of judicial review the judgment and order dated 5 7 2012 in writ petition no 5214 of 2012 had directed

Kay Kay Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cloth Markets and Shops Board and o ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2006(6)ALLMR5; 2006(6)BomCR739; [2007(112)FLR273]; (2007)ILLJ865Bom; 2006(6)MhLj377

had discovered that a certain special class of workers employed essentially in markets factories and other such places were either not terms and conditions in shops and markets dealing with several commodities admittedly they are not covered under any of the existing act 1969 according to her the mathadi act is a special legislation and a complete code in itself which has been workers engaged in these scheduled employments and to make better provisions for their terms and conditions of employment and to provide gets protection only when a scheme is framed under this act to cover him and the type of dock work he firstly for protection of their better condition of service by section 21 of the act and for exemption of such workers but they are special obiter dicta 8 writ petition no 7671 of 2005 and writ petition no 3717 of 2005 were

State of Maharashtra and Khas Mohamad Basalataill Vs. Prabhatkumar Sha ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1985(1)BomCR609

and it was also revealed that the said company was essentially dealing in timber this therefore justifiably resulted in not accepting to over ride especially when provisions under the act are special provisions it is also submitted by the learned counsel that should not be made to over ride especially by the provisions under the act are special provisions it is also submitted custody of accused no 1 p w nagraj who was acting as personal assistant and who refers to the handwriting of been made public servants not covering the cases for which section 21 was required to be amended which essentially pertains to placed under scrutiny in navroze barla v l h mehta 75 bom l r 493 where a learned single judge held

Principal Judge, Family Court Vs. Nil

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2009Bom12; 2008(4)ALLMR461; 2008(4)BomCR539; (2008)110BOMLR2089; 2008(5)MhLj222

to the marriage according to shastrik ceremony marriage saptapadi is essential prior to the amendment act of 1976 the remedy of sensitive attitude towards human relationship even within family like commercial commodities and or services marriage should not become a commodity as the scope of specified jurisdiction of the court under the special statute by judicial pronouncement and that too to the extent functions of a police officer neither there is any specific provisions in the act not on principle of implied interpretation it the petitioners that the provisions of section 13b of the act are ultra vires to the constitutional mandate and or great and not according to whims and fancies of court the section when directs that remedy under section 13b can be availed into section 8 the stipulation in the proviso to section 7 with the explanation thereto would amount to legislation by courts