Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

Ghee is Certainly a Product of Livestock: Supreme Court Upholds 1994 Notification, Validates Market Fee on Ghee

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and S.V.N. Bhatti, resolved a longstanding legal debate by declaring 'ghee' as a 'product of livestock' under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The Court also validated the Government notification from 1994, which recognized 'ghee' as a livestock product for market regulation.

The judgment hinged on two key legal questions: the classification of 'ghee' as a 'product of livestock' under the Act, and the procedural validity of the 1994 notification by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The case centered around the 1994 notification which included 'ghee' in the regulated products list under the Act. The appellants contested the notification, arguing against 'ghee' being a livestock product and alleging non-compliance with the procedural norms of the Act.

In his judgment, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated, "The argument that 'ghee' is not a product of livestock is baseless, and bereft of any logic." The Court recognized 'ghee' as a derivative of milk, categorizing it under 'products of livestock' as defined in the Act.

The Court also clarified the procedural distinction between notifications under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It was determined that the 1994 notification, issued under Section 4, did not require the process of a draft notification and public objections as mandated under Section 3.

Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellants were ordered to pay market fees from 1994 to 2009. Recognizing the potential financial strain, the Court allowed the fee to be paid over two years in four equal installments. Interim orders that had previously restrained the collection of market fees were lifted.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2024

Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. vs. The Agricultural Market Committee & Ors.

Latest Legal News