Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Essential Commodities Act, 1955

39 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NARSINGHPURversusM/S. SHIV SHAKTI KHANSARI UDYOG AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 36430 August 2012Dismissed

The respondents, operators of sugar factories in Madhya Pradesh, challenged notices issued by market committees that required them to obtain licences under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972 and to pay market fees on purchases of sugarcane. The High Court quashed the notices, holding that the transactions w

UNION OF INDIAversusGLAXO INDIA LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 24430 March 2011Appeal(s) allowed

Glaxo India Ltd. manufactured three bulk drugs and their formulations. The Central Government fixed maximum prices for these drugs by notifications dated 12‑May‑1981, 20‑Nov‑1986 and 2‑Jan‑1989, the latter superseding the earlier ones. The Government later demanded that Glaxo deposit Rs 71.21 crore into the Drug Prices

M/S BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD.versusSIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANR.

2010 INSC 83129 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Union Government could de‑license the sugar industry by issuing Press Note 12 and a Notification under Section 298 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, without a parliamentary amendment. It held that the executive power under Article 73(1) is co‑extensive with

SUNIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA

2012 INSC 15027 March 2012Dismissed

Sunil Kumar was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for possessing and selling large quantities of blue kerosene and was sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent application seeking modification of the

RAVICHANDRANversusSTATE BY DY. SUPERIN. OF POLICE, MADRAS

2010 INSC 16925 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for conspiracy, cheating, forgery of a palmolein oil permit and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Essential Commodities Act. The prosecution alleged that accused A1, A2 and A4 had interpolated and forged the permit, relying mainly on handwriting identification by witnesse

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.versusARVIND KUMAR & ANR.

2012 INSC 29823 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Bihar seized 5,923 bags of wheat from the flour mill of Arvind Kumar & Anr. after a raid based on secret information indicating diversion of subsidised food grains for black marketing. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and release of

AVTAR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

2023 INSC 28023 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were seized by a Sub‑Inspector of Police at a bus stop in Phagwara on suspicion of selling gas cylinders at a price lower than the prescribed rate. They were convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for unauthorized possession of the cylinders and sentenced to six months imprisonm

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ,

2013 INSC 70922 October 2013Disposed off

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a writ petition seeking a separate expert committee to examine the health effects of soft drinks, especially on children, and to compel the Union of India to impose stricter regulatory controls, labeling, and advertising standards. The Court examined whether the existing

WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 34622 April 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined a reference concerning whether the Uttar Pradesh government could fix a State Advised Price (SAP) for sugarcane under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and whether such power conflicted with the Central government's authority to fix a minimum price

SATYANARAYANA SULTANIA & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2010 INSC 5122 January 2010Dismissed

On February 3, 2000, a truck carrying 100 quintals of paddy belonging to the petitioners was stopped by a food inspector, and the grain was seized and later confiscated under Clause 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1997. The petitioners challenged the seizu

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. CIPLA LTD. & ANR.

2016 INSC 98121 October 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the validity of several notifications issued by the Central Government under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO 1995) that prescribed norms for conversion cost, packing charges and process loss, and fixed retail or ceiling prices of drug formulations. The Court held that the 1999 no

SWARAJ ABHIYAN (V)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 66021 July 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition under Art. 32 challenging the failure of several State Governments and Union Territories to implement mandatory provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFS Act), including grievance redressal officers, State Food Commissions, social audits and vigilance committees.

ESSAR STEEL LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2016 INSC 32519 April 2016Dismissed

Essar Steel Ltd. and other off‑takers had long‑term contracts to purchase regasified LNG (RLNG) at a fixed price. In 2007 the Union Government issued a policy directive to pool RLNG prices and apply a uniform, non‑discriminatory price to all long‑term contracts, which raised the price for the appellants. The appellants

SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS .versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2012 INSC 3317 January 2012Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined a series of civil appeals concerning the payment of outstanding principal amounts to sugarcane growers by sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh. The crux of the dispute was whether the State Government could fix a State Advised Price (SAP) for sugarcane that exceeds the minimum price fixed by the

COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANRversusCOMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

2023 INSC 58015 June 2023

Coal India Ltd (CIL) and its subsidiary Western Coalfields Ltd challenged the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) finding of abuse of dominant position, arguing that the Competition Act, 2002 does not apply to them because they are government companies created under the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and ar

M/S BASPA ORGANICS LIMITEDversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2020 INSC 19014 February 2020Dismissed

M/s Baspa Organics Ltd. (appellant) purchased a chemical plant and continued a fire‑and‑special‑perils insurance policy issued by United India Insurance Ltd. (respondent). After a fire in January 2002, the insurer denied the claim, alleging that the appellant had over‑valued the plant and had failed to disclose that it

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) & ORS.versusLALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

2022 INSC 71913 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), sought to validate a search and seizure warrant issued under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia, who had transferred Rs 10 crore as a loan to a newly formed company and later repaid it with interest. The High

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusM/S LINDE INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 33413 April 2020Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh assessed tax on M/s Linde India Ltd for its sale of Medical Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide IP, treating them as unclassified goods under Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which would attract a 12.5%/14.5% rate. Linde argued that the products are drugs/medicines covered

MANOJversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2026 INSC 15213 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for allegedly possessing and diverting government‑quota cement in 1994. The prosecution relied on the Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 and the Cement Control Order, 1967, but the Supreme Court

SANTOSH S/O DWARKADAS FAFATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2017 INSC 102710 October 2017

Santosh was accused under Section 408 IPC read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act for receiving misappropriated food grains. He applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the trial court and the Nagpur High Court. After depositing the alleged amount, he obtained interim protection, but the

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT, KOCHI & ORS.versusJALAJA DILEEP &ANR.

2015 INSC 19910 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a petition by the owners of a 12.286‑cent plot in Ernakulam district seeking to have the land re‑classified as dry land (‘purayidam’) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The High Court, relying on Section 18 of the Land Tax Act, directed the Tahsildar to correct the B

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LIMITED)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8139 December 2013Disposed off

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd challenged notices issued by the Drug Inspector after a price‑fixation notification under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995. The issue was whether the notified ceiling price became operative for all sales immediately, or whether manufacturers could continue to sell pre‑notificat

SHIVASHAKTI SUGARS LIMITEDversusSHREE RENUKA SUGAR LIMITED & ORS.

2017 INSC 12909 May 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Shivashakti Sugars Ltd obtained permission to set up a sugar factory in Saundatti, Karnataka, but the High Court held that the nearby Raibagh Sahakari factory was an existing sugar mill within 15 km, violating Clause 6A of the Sugarcane Control (Amendment) Order, 2006, and ordered the factory’s closure. On appeal, the

MOHD. JAMALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2013 INSC 4488 July 2013Disposed off

The petitioners, who were land owners, applied for petroleum retail outlet dealerships under a 2002 policy that later was suspended. They entered into long‑term lease deeds and maintenance‑handling contracts with Indian Oil and IBP, investing substantial sums, and claimed that the oil companies were estopped from withd

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. R.M. SERVICE CENTRE & ANR.

2019 INSC 12227 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The dealer, M/s R.M. Service Centre, held a retail licence for petrol, diesel, oil and grease. A joint inspection revealed a positive stock variation of High Speed Diesel beyond permissible limits and lack of reference density. Samples drawn were sent for testing; the first was dispatched five days after collection, ex

M/S. OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2020 INSC 1427 February 2020Dismissed

M/s Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., a sugar manufacturer in Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, challenged the Central Government's decision to place its factory in the Central Zone for levy‑sugar price fixation for the 1984‑85 and 1985‑86 crushing years, seeking parity with two other factories in the same district that were placed in the

C.I.T. BOMBAYversusTASGAON TALUKA S.S.K. LTD.

2019 INSC 3095 March 2019Disposed off

The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, challenged the deduction claimed by Tasgaon Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugarcane processor, for the price paid to cane growers that exceeded the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) fixed under Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966. The

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusAMAN MITTAL & ANR.

2019 INSC 10014 September 2019Case Partly allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed criminal appeals against Aman Mittal and others for alleged short delivery of petrol and diesel, invoking offences under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Essential Commodities Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court had quashed the charge‑sheet under s.482 CrPC and issued

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusM/S. SWISS GARNIER LIFE SCIENCES & ORS.

2013 INSC 4394 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India challenged the Delhi High Court's order setting aside price‑fixation notifications for Doxofylline formulations, arguing that Doxofylline is a derivative of the scheduled bulk drug Theophylline. The respondents contended that Doxofylline is a new chemical entity not listed in the First Schedule of th

SIDDHARTH DALMIA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 3513 March 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, invoking Article 32, sought a court order to stop private hospitals from forcing patients to purchase medicines and consumables exclusively from the hospitals' own pharmacies at inflated prices, alleging exploitation and violation of the right to life under Article 21. They highlighted personal experie

KULSUM NISHAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2026 INSC 6172 June 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a married daughter, applied for allotment of a fair‑price shop under the dependent quota after her mother, the previous dealer, died. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner rejected her claim, relying on a clause in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Order that excluded "marr

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusCHEMBUR SERVICE STATION

2011 INSC 1742 March 2011Matter referred to larger bench

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) entered into a Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (DPSL) agreement with Chembur Service Station, appointing it as a dealer to sell BPCL's petroleum products. After a surprise inspection revealed alleged manipulation of a dispensing unit, BPCL issued a show‑cause notice and subse

RAJASTHAN CYLINDERS AND CONTAINERS LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2018 INSC 9161 October 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigation into alleged bid‑rigging by LPG cylinder manufacturers in a tender floated by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The CCI and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) had found that the manufacturers colluded, relying on factors such as

BRANCH C.1.0., TIRUNELVELI RANGE, TAMILNADUversusMARIYAANTONVIJAY

2015 INSC 4631 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The police intercepted the vessel M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio within Indian territorial waters and seized a large quantity of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, leading to a charge sheet under the Arms Act, 1959 and other statutes. The accused challenged the charge sheet through revision (s.397) and a petition under the in

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search