Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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