Supreme Court Monthly Digest - March 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 268 Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Ghee as a product of livestock – The inclusion of “ghee” as a livestock product cannot be faulted merely because it is not directly obtained from milk, which is a product of livestock, it would still be a “product of a product of livestock”. 'Ghee' is derived out of 'milk' by undergoing a process, yet it still remains a product of livestock, for the purposes of the Act and payment of “market fee”. (Para 10) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204 Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Section 3 & 4 – Difference between the notification made under Section 3 of the Act and notification made subsequently under Section 4 of the Act – Notification under Section 3 is a onetime measure where the Government notifies an area where purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock can be made. Whereas under Section 4 the Govt. declares the 'notified market area' in respect of any notified product (products which have already been notified under section 3 of the Act). A draft notification and hearing of objections to the draft notification is mandatory under Section 3 but a prior hearing or prior publication of the draft notification is not a requirement under Section 4. The notification in question is a notification under Section 4, hence, no prior process was required to be followed as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act for working the scheme under Section 4 of the Act. Hence, the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down. (Para 11) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204 Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) –Section 4(3) – Liability to pay market fee – Unjust enrichment – Section 4(3) empowers Market Committees to establish markets within the notified area, also directs that these Market Committees have to provide facilities in the markets for the purchase and sale of notified products. The appellants have availed the facility given by the Market Committee and hence they are liable to pay the fee. (Para 13) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204 Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (Andhra Pradesh) – Purpose – To consolidate and amend the laws regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, along with establishment of markets in connection therewith. The aim was to secure effective and remunerative price of commodities by bringing producers and traders face to face thereby eliminating middlemen and do away with some other earlier unethical trade practices, which were exploiting agriculturists and farmers. (Para 2) Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 204 Anticipatory Bail Custodial interrogation is one of the effective modes of investigating into the alleged crime. It is equally true that just because custodial interrogation is not required that by itself may also not be a ground to release an accused on anticipatory bail if the offences are of a serious nature. However, a mere assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be sufficient. The State would have to show or indicate more than prima facie why the custodial interrogation of the accused is required for the purpose of investigation. (Para 12) Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 223 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 48 – Enforcement of foreign award in India challenged on grounds of arbitral bias – In India, courts must adopt an internationally recognized narrow standard of public policy, when dealing with the aspect of bias. Refusal of enforcement of foreign award should only be in a rare case where, non- adherence to International Standards is clearly demonstrable. Held, cannot infer bias or likelihood of bias of the Presiding Arbitrator, hence there is no violation of the public policy, which would render the foreign award unenforceable in India. The award debtors have failed to substantiate their allegation of bias, conflict of interest or the failure by the Presiding Arbitrator to render disclosure to the parties, as an objection to the enforcement of the award. Courts across the world have applied a higher threshold of bias to prevent enforcement of an Award than the standards set for ordinary judicial review. The award debtors have failed to meet the high threshold for refusal of enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest - March 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags