SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Bom) 459

V.A.MOHTA, N.W.SAMBRE
Namdeorao Krishnaji Gajabhiye – Appellant
Versus
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee – Respondent


JUDGMENT - SAMBRE W.M., J.:—Heard parties.

2. Rule returnable forthwith.

3. Petitioner claims that he is a Broker and therefore the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, dated 15-1-1990 holding him to be a Commission Agent is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given a licence as an Adtiya by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (A.P.M.C.), Narkhed, on his application dated 24-9-1988. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he will abide by the Rules and Regulations of the A.P.M.C. The licence was issued to him under Rule 6(2) of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Rules, 1967, wherein the conditions for working as Adtiya have been prescribed. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Broker/Dalal and has nothing to do with the designation of Adtiya/Commission Agent. On the complaint made by the agriculturists/horticulturists, the respondent-A.P.M.C. passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to file a dispute under section 57 of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Act, 1963. Accordingly a dispute was raised and the Secretary of the A.P.M.C. represented the A.P.M.C. before the Authorised Officer. An Aw













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top