ARIJIT PASAYAT, S. H. KAPADIA
Orient Paper and Industries LTD. – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. - The Civil Appeal and the Transfer Petition are inter-linked and are taken together for disposal.
2. Background facts involved are essentially as follows:
A writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The basic stand of the appellant was that it is not eligible to pay any market fee under the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before the High Court it was projected that appellant is a Public Limited Company having its registered Head Office at Brajrajnagar (Orissa) and has a paper manufacturing plant at Amlai in the district of Shahdol in State of Madhya Pradesh. The appellant -company uses bamboos, wood dyes, starch rosin, talcum and several chemicals as raw material for production of paper. The manufacturing process consists of crushing bamboos and wood pieces into pulp to which chemicals are added at a subsequent stage. Elaborate description was given how the manufacturing process takes place. It was paying without any demur the market fee to the Mandi Samiti whenever the appellant bought or sold
REFERRED TO : Kores India Ltd., Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh
Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M/s. Coco Fibres
C.C.E. v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works
Mis. Saraswati Sugar Mills and others v. Haryana State Board and others
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and Ors. v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.