Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD CJI., V.R. KRISHNA IYER, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.N. SHINGHAL AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos., 1841-1846 of 1978 :
Civil Appeals Nos. 1841-1846, 871, 1921,1960,2169-2173, 2178-2187, 2219-2226, 2260-2261, 2269, 2302, 2373-2375, 2321-2322, 2356, 2359, 2386, 2406-2408, 2426-2428, 2430-2431, 2457, 2504 and 2507 of 1978; 142-144, 174, 230, 385-388, 429-438, 599, 635, 745, 821, 929 and 1007-1009 of 1979; 1149-1149A, 1346, 1630-1636, 1638, 1863, 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1869 of 1979 and 2270-2272 of 1978; 487 of 1979 and Writ Petn. Nos. 257 and 600 of 1979, D/- 25-3-1980.
Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Co. and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 871 of 1978:
Dina Nath and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 1978:
Narendra Kumar Agarwal and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2169-2173 of 1978 :
M/s. Kishan Lal Satya Prakash and Co., Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2169-2173 of 1878:
M/s. Gokul Chand Phool Chand and others, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2178-2187 of 1978 :
Shri Shiv Shanker Sarraf etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2219-2226 of 1978 :
Bhagwan Das Ravi Kant and etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2260-2261 of 1978 :
M/s. Star Hide Co., Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2269, 2302, 2373-2375 of 1978 :
The Star Paper Mills Ltd. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2321-2322, 2356 etc. of 1978; 1865, 1866, 1867 & 1869 etc. of 1979 and 2270-2272 of 1978 :
Raghubir Saran Prem Chand and others etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 487 of 1979:
M/s. Ram Prasad Vishambhar Nath and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
and
Writ Petitions Nos. 257 and 600 of 1979 :
Sohan Singh and others etc, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Adv. (Mr. R.F. Nariman and Mr. P. C. Bhartari, Advs. with him), for Appellants in CA Nos. 2260-61; Mr. S. P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. H. K. Puri, Adv. Mr. V. K. Bahl. Adv. Miss Madhu Moolchandani, Advs. for Appellants in CAs 1841-46, 2428-28, 929, 1007-1009, 1630. 2169-72 and 1635. Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Adv. (2457 & 2502), Mr. G. B. Pai, Sr. Adv. (871) Mrs. Saran Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Lakshmi Arvind, Adv. and Mr. R. K. Sinha, Adv. (2322), for Appellants in CA Nos. 2507, 2322, 2457 & 871; Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. P. Gupta, Adv. Mr. H. K. Puri, and Miss Madhu Moolchandani, Advs. for Appellants in CA 174: Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sr. Adv. (2269-70) Mr. S. S. Ray, Sr. Adv. (2271) Mr. Ghayyas Alam, Adv. (2269 & 2271) Mr. R. K. Jain, Adv., for Appellants in CA 2269, 2270-72; Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv. (2373) Mr. Subhash Chandra Birla and Mr. Shreepal Singh, Adv., for Appellants in 2373, 2302, 2374 & 2375; Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Adv. (Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Adv. with him), for Appellants in 599, 142-44, 385, 1638, 2219-2226, 1921, 1960, 2173, 2178, 2180-87 2179, 386-388, 429-438 & WP 257; MR. Promod Swarup, Adv., for Appellants in CA No. 230, 2359 & 2386; Mr. P. R. Mridul, Sr. Adv. (Mr. Ashok Grover, Adv. with him), for Appellants in CA 2406 to 2408; Mr. Veda Vyasa. Sr. Adv. (in CA 821 and WP 600) (Mr. N. C. Sikri, Mr. A. K. Sikri and Mr. Vijay Jaiswal, Advs. with him), for Appellants in CA 821, 487 and W. P. 600 Mr. O. P. Verma, Adv., for Appellants in CA 1867 and 1869; Dr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Shadhana Ramchandran Adv. and Mr. P. K. Pillai, Adv., for Appellant No. 1 in CA 1846, 745 and Appellants No. 2 in CA No. 1633-34; Mr.Ravindra Bana, Adv., for R. 2 in CA Nos 1846 and 2375/78 and CA 429 and 1635 0f 1979 and Respondent No. 1 in CA No. 2373-2374 of 1978 and Respondent No. 3 in CA No. 2321 of 2 1978 Mr.S.K.Jain, Adv.,for Appellants in CA No. 187/79; Mr.T.S. Arora, Adv., for Appellants in CA 2356/78 & 1346/79 ; Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Sr. Adv.Mr. O.P.Rana,Adv. Mrs.S.Ramchandran, Adv., for Appellants No 2 in CA 1866 and Appellants in CA 1865 and R.1 in CAs. 142-43 and 44 for appellants in CAs 1631, 1632 and Appellant No. 1 in CA 1634, 1632 and Appellants in CA 1863; Mr. S . K. Dhingra, Adv., for Appellants in CA 2321/78; Mr. J. M. Khanna, Adv., for Appellants in CA 2430-31; M/s. K. B. Rohtagi and Praveen Jain , Advs., for Appellants in CA 2504/78; Mr.M .M. L. Srivastava, Adv. For Appellants in CA 1149 & 1149 A, Mr. K.C. Dua, Adv., for appellants in C. A. 1635-36. Dr.L. N. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. (1346) Mr. (B .D. Madhyan, Adv. Mr. R. N. Dikshit and L. K . Pandey , Advs.), for Respondents (Mandi Samiti) 1841-46,1921, 2169-2173, 2178-87, 2219-26, 2260-61, 2269, 2302, 2373-75, 2322, 2356, 2406-8, 2430 to 2431, 2426-28, 2507, 142-44, 174, 385-88, 429-438, 599, 230, 635, 1007-08, 1149-1149A, 1630-31, 1638, 5135, 1346, 2212; Mr.E.C.Agrawala,Adv. Mr.R.Satish Adv., for the RR.2 in CA 2179, 2180 ,2222, 2271,2431, 2433, 2504/78 and 1869 & 143/79 and in other matters for Mandi Samiti of Muzaffarnagar and Meerut; Mr. Ravinder Bana,Adv., for RR. 2 in 2457. 2270 and 2272 RR. 2 and 3 in CA 2269. & W. P. No. 257/79; Mr. M.V. Goswami. Adv., for RR. 1 in CA 2356.
* W.P. No. 4846, 4436, 4815, 5040 and 4475 and 4587 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. No. 1749 of 1974, D/- 29-4-1977; W.P.No. 4566 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. No. 4568 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. Nos. 4542, 5589, 5592, 5594 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978, W.P. Nos. 4921, 4625, 4449, 5002, 5003, 5007, 5068, 5069, 5284and 4568 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. Nos. 4923, 4942, 4987, 5011, 5032, 5045, 5735 and 5771 of 1978 D/-31-9-1978; W.P. Nos. 5185 and 5059 of 1978 D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. Nos. 5193, 5192, 5010, 4584 and 4583 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978; W.P. Nos. 5221, 4982, 5001, 4447 etc. of 1978, 5194, 5195, 5196 of1979 and (11) W.P. No. 4445 of 1978, D/- 21-9-1978, (All).
U. P. Act XXV of 1964 - Levying Of Fee In Relation To Transaction - Litigations Cropping Up From Time To Time - Fees Levied - Illegal Or Unauthorised Collections - Because of litigations cropping up from time to time between traders and Market Committees working of Committees had not successfully proceeded so far as fees levied from time to time could not be realised in full - Sometimes illegal or unauthorised collections seem to have been made - Money justifiably realised also does not seem to have been fully utilised as it ought to have been done - In order to enable Market Committees in their attempt to implement law as far as possible and to save their attempt from being thwarted by any unnecessary litigation were allowed parties to advance a full throated argument in this Court including some of points which were not argued in High Court or in support of which foundations of fact were lacking - In this judgment our endeavour will be to formulate points of law and decide them as far as practicable so that in future business of Market Committees may be conducted in light of this judgment leaving no scope for unnecessary litigation – Held, Court hold that market fee should be regularised and be charged in light of this judgment - If anything has been realised from traders or any other person which goes contrary to this judgment same should be refunded by he Market Committee concerned within six months from today - This may not be treated as a precedent for all cases of this type - Form of order in relation to refund of market fee may vary from case to case depending upon facts and circumstances of each case - Market fee due from traders in light of this judgment should also be charged and paid within a period of six months from today - If there is any disputed question of fact to be decided by Market Committee then it should be decided as quickly as possible leaving person concerned to agitate matter in a court if law preferably in High Court within a short time thereafter - High Court will proceed to decide matter in light of our judgment - Order Accordingly.
JUDGMENT
UNTWALIA, J. :—The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 being U. P. Act XXV of 1964, hereinafter called the Act, was passed in that year. It led to the establishment of Market Areas, Principal Market Yards and Sub-Market Yards etc. and the levying of the fee in relation to transaction of certain commodities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Various Market Committees were formed known as Mandi Samitis. In order to give effect to the working of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965, hereinafter called the Rules, were made by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. The Act has been amended several times. But we were distressed to find that the Rules were not accordingly amended as and when required to make them up-to-date in accordance with the amended Act. Various traders carrying on business in the State of Uttar Pradesh within the jurisdiction of several Market Committees challenged the levy of fee in the High Court of Allahabad from time to time. There were several rounds of litigation in which they, by and large, failed. Finally many Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated September 21, 1978 on which date many writ petitions were also dismissed in limine. Civil Appeal 1841 of 1978 and about 103 more appeals are from the said judgment and order of the High Court. Immediately preceding the said judgment a longer and more elaborate judgment had been delivered by the High Court on April 29, 1977, Civil Appeal 871 of 1978 and Civil Appeal 1636 of 1979 are from the said judgment. Along with these 106 appeals, two Writ Petitions were also heard being Writ Petition No. 257 of 1979 and Writ Petition No. 600 of 1979. Thus in all 108 matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. At the outset it may be mentioned that because of the litigations cropping up from time to time between the traders and the Market Committees the working of the Committees had not successfully proceeded so far, as, fees levied from time to time could not be realised in full. Sometimes illegal or unauthorised collections seem to have been made. Money justifiably realised also does not seem to have been fully utilised as it ought to have been done. In order to enable the Market Committees in their attempt to implement the law as far as possible and to save their attempt from being thwarted by any unnecessary litigation were allowed the parties to advance a full throated argument in this Court including some of the points which were not argued in the High Court or in support of which foundations of fact were lacking. In this judgment our endeavour will be to formulate the points of law and decide them as far as practicable so that in future the business of the Market Committees may be conducted in the light of this judgment leaving no scope for unnecessary litigation. Of course even in our judgment at places it would be indicated, and even apart from that, some genuine and factual disputes may crop up which in the first instance may be decided by the Market Committees, preferably a Board constituted by a particular Committee for deciding such disputes and then, if necessary, by the High Court. We do hope that no further time will be lost by the State Government in amending the Rules and making them up-to-date to fit in with the latest amendments in the Act.
3. The long title of the Act indicates that it is an Act "to provide for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence, and control of markets therefore in Uttar Pradesh." From the Objects and Reasons of the enactment it would appear that this Act was passed for the development of new market areas and for efficient data, collection and processing of arrivals in the Mandis to enable the World Bank to give a substantial help for the establishment of various markets in the States of Uttar Pradesh. In other States the Act is mainly meant to protect an agricultu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
