2016 (9) TMI 972

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....corporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not lifting/shifting the stocks of paddy bags from the rice mill premises and godown premises of respondent No.5 situated over an extent of Acs.1.27 guntas in Survey No.28/A.D of Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Order, dated 21-07-2015, in Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar. WP.No.5008 of 2016 is filed by the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short respondent No.1) for a Mandamus to declare Order, dated 21-07-2015, in Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the property shall be delivered by the Advocate-Commissioner with the help of Police. This order has been challenged in WP.No.5008 of 2016. After obtaining Order, dated 21-07-2015, in Crl.M.P.No.132 of 2015, respondent No.5 filed WP.No.39476 of 2016 for the relief referred to above. The respondents have filed their respective counter- affidavits in both the Writ Petitions. We have heard Mr.P.Rajesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.A.Jagan, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as respondent No.5- Mill failed to supply a substantial part of the resultant rice to the FCI, having received the paddy for custom milling, it was found liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,04,23,73....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f India (cited supra), the Supreme Court, while dealing with the overriding effect of Section 34(1) of the DRT Act, 1993, and Section 35 of the 2002 Act vis--vis the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, held as under: The non obstante clauses contained in Section 34 (1) of the DRT Act and Section 35 of the Securitisation Act give overriding effect to the provisions of those Acts only if there is anything inconsistent contained in any other law or instrument having effect by virtue of any other law. In other words, if there is no provision in the other enactments which are inconsistent with the DRT Act or the Securitisation Act, the provisions contained in those Acts cannot override other legislations. Section....