Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate

Dealer Not Liable For substandard fertilizer in sealed bags, Cites Manufacturer’s Sole Liability :Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Complaint Against Fertilizer Dealer

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order against Bhupinder Garg and other petitioners concerning substandard fertilizer. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, underscores that liability for substandard fertilizer in sealed bags lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer. The court’s decision in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. CRM-M-43605-2018 reaffirms existing legal precedents, providing crucial clarity on the responsibilities of dealers and manufacturers under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985.

Dealer vs. Manufacturer Liability: The court meticulously analyzed the liability of dealers versus manufacturers in cases involving substandard fertilizers. Justice Bedi noted that the samples in question were taken from sealed and properly stored fertilizer bags, a critical detail that influenced the ruling. “The dealer is not liable for the substandard fertilizer as the responsibility lies with the manufacturer,” the court observed, reinforcing the principles set out in several precedents.

The judgment extensively referenced previous rulings, including Manoj Grover v. State of Punjab, Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab, and M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. V. State of Punjab, which consistently upheld that dealers cannot be held liable for substandard fertilizers found in sealed bags. “There is no evidence to suggest that the bags/packets of the fertilizer were torn or improperly stored,” noted Justice Bedi, emphasizing that any manufacturing defect is solely the responsibility of the manufacturer.

Evidence and Legal Reasoning: Justice Bedi highlighted that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence that the dealers had tampered with or improperly stored the fertilizer bags. The court held that “in the absence of any evidence on record, or the statement to the effect that the petitioners were in any manner associated in the manufacture of the fertilizer contained in the bags, they cannot be held liable for the contents of the fertilizer.”

Justice Bedi succinctly encapsulated the court’s stance: “The liability, if any, only lay with the manufacturer. The non-compliance of the sub-standard, if at all, can only be attributed to the manufacturer.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling is a pivotal affirmation of the legal boundaries defining dealer and manufacturer responsibilities in the fertilizer industry. By quashing Complaint Case No. 14 dated 22.03.2018 and the summoning order dated 07.04.2018, Justice Bedi’s decision underscores the importance of clear, evidence-based attribution of liability. This landmark judgment is expected to significantly impact how future cases involving substandard agricultural inputs are adjudicated, ensuring that manufacturers are held accountable for the quality of their products.

Date of Decision:7th May 2024

Bhupinder Garg & Others vs. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News