Search Results for "Sugar Dealers Licensing Order"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

Search Results for "Sugar Dealers Licensing Order"

4 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 4 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Possessing Excess Sugar Without Licence Under Essential Commodities Act. Appellant Found with 22 Quintals of Sugar, Exceeding 10 Quintal Limit for Unlicensed Retailers Under Maharashtra Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963.

25 Sep 2014

The appellant, Ashok Nankram Ahuja, was convicted by the Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Summary Case No.6/1996 for contravening an order under Section 3 o...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Competing Kerosene Dealer for Lack of Locus Standi. Mere Competitor Not a Person Aggrieved Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

1 Oct 2012

The appellant, Rajendra Agrawal, a semi-wholesale kerosene dealer in Murtizapur, filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of a Single Judge dis...

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Levy of Fees on Transporters and Traders Under Essential Commodities Act for Maintenance of Public Distribution System. The court held that the levy under Section 3(3)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a valid regulatory fee and not a tax.

13 Dec 2013

The judgment involves multiple writ petitions and civil applications challenging the levy of fees on transporters and traders under the Maharashtra Es...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals by Competition Commission of India and Kapoor Glass in Abuse of Dominance Case — No Abuse Found in Volume Discounts and Contractual Terms by Dominant Glass Tubing Manufacturer. The court held that volume discounts are not per se abusive under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and that the evidence did not establish anti-competitive foreclosure or refusal to supply.

30 Jun 2025

The case arises from an information filed by Kapoor Glass India Pvt. Ltd. on 25 May 2010 under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging that ...

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)