Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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