Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
15 judgments · newest first · showing 1–15
M/s Brahhm Arpan Organic Private Ltd filed a writ petition challenging an order of the State of Uttar Pradesh, alleging it was maintainable. Respondent No.3 argued that the petitioner had an efficacious remedy under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, and therefore …
The Mandi Samiti, a market committee established under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, collects market fees and is statutorily required to transfer certain amounts to the Mandi Parishad. Both entities are registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue …
Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. and other dealers challenged market fee assessments levied by the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, claiming that the ghee they exported was transferred as stock and not sold within the mandi, thus exempting them from the fee. The Samiti rejected the refund claims, …
The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (appellant) issued notices to Mis. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhandan Ltd. (respondent) demanding a licence under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, because the company bought agricultural produce such as gur, amla and ghee in …
Kumaon Seeds Corp. and others, dealers in certified seeds, were served with show‑cause notices by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Committee seeking to levy a market fee under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The dealers filed suits challenging the notices; the High Court dismissed …
The appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad claimed market fee under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 on rice exported by the respondent partnership firm. The respondent argued that the rice was purchased from millers outside Uttar Pradesh and …
The appellants challenged the levy of market fee on Zafrani Zarda, a chewing tobacco product, under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The issue was whether Zafrani Zarda qualifies as a "specified agricultural produce" and, if so, whether it is a "processed" form of tobacco …
The State of Uttar Pradesh appointed the U.P. Forest Corporation as its agent to trade in tendu leaves. Under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act, a market fee is payable by traders, and a proviso in Section 17(iii)(3) makes the trader liable even if the fee is not realised from the …
The appellant Mandi Parishad sought market fee on cut tobacco processed by ITC Ltd in Saharanpur and sent to its own factory in Calcutta and to contract manufacturers. The Mandi Samiti’s President exempted the consignment to Calcutta but referred the contract‑manufacturer case to the Director, who …
The Uttar Pradesh State Agricultural Produce Market Board appointed 1,021 employees between April 1996 and October 1997 without complying with the statutory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and its service regulations. The State later cancelled those appointments …
The State of Rajasthan prosecuted licensed traders Mool Chand and others for evading market duty under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The trial court convicted them, sentencing them to three months' imprisonment and ordering payment of the evaded duty. The High Court set aside …
Park Leather Industry and another, engaged in preparing tanned leather, challenged the levy of market fees imposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, on the ground that tanned leather is a distinct manufactured commodity and not "hides and …
The Supreme Court examined whether gur‑lauta, raskat, rab‑galawat and rab‑salawat—inferior forms of gur and rab derived from sugarcane or molasses—constitute "agricultural produce" under Section 2(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and are therefore liable to market fee. …
The Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti sought to acquire Plot No. 289 for a market yard and the State issued several notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Earlier notifications were partially quashed by the High Court, but the State later issued fresh notifications in May 1982 invoking …
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, particularly section 7(6) which bans sale of notified produce outside the market, and section 12(1) which authorises a market fee. The petitioners argued that these …
