Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High 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