"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering 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