IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Instructions Cannot Have Retrospective Effect, Capacity Determination of Rice Mill Quashed

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, delivered a landmark judgment on 24th July 2023, setting a crucial precedent concerning the determination of capacity for Rice Mills. The case, bearing CWP-473-2023, involved M/S Kissan Rice Mills as the petitioner and the State of Punjab and others as respondents.

The dispute revolved around the capacity determination of the Rice Mill, which was installed by the petitioner in 2007. As per the guidelines prevailing at that time, the capacity of the Mill was determined as 4 MT (Metric Tons). However, in 2022, the respondents issued an order, Annexure P-7, reducing the capacity to 2 MT, citing modified instructions from 2010 that excluded leased land from the required parameters for capacity determination.

The core contention of the petitioner was whether the instructions of 2010 could be applied retrospectively to a Rice Mill that was installed in 2007. The petitioner’s counsel argued, “Instructions dated 20.08.2010 cannot be made applicable to already installed Rice Mill. It is settled proposition of law that executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect.”

In a significant development, the Hon’ble Justice Bansal upheld the petitioner’s stance, ruling that “capacity of the petitioner cannot be determined on the basis of 2010 instructions.” The court reiterated that executive instructions cannot be applied retrospectively, and the capacity determination should be based on the guidelines in force at the time of installation.

As a result, the impugned order, which reduced the capacity of the Rice Mill based on the question of land, was quashed. However, to address the issue regarding the plant and machinery, the court directed the parties to conduct a joint verification. The court further ordered the respondents to carry out the joint inspection within four weeks and pass a fresh order concerning the capacity of the Mill based on verified findings.

This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court sets a vital precedent, emphasizing the principle that executive instructions cannot have retrospective effect, protecting the rights of businesses that adhere to the guidelines in place at the time of their establishment. The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.

 Date of Decision: 24.07.2023 

M/S KISSAN RICE MILLS vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/M_S_Kissan_Rice_Mills_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Others_on_24_July_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News