Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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.

Similar News