Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab agricultural produce markets validation act 1955 Page 1 of about 490 results (0.039 seconds)

Mar 09 1990 (HC)

M/S. Subbhash Chander Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1990P& H259; (1990)98PLR666

..... no. 1421 of 1980 (m/s. borakia dal mills v. state of haryana) and a number of connected writ petitions, which were directed against the vires of the punjab agricultural produce market (haryana second amendment and validation) act, 1980, were dismissed by a constitution bench of the supreme court by order dated december 3, 1985. in doing so, their lordships observed that the challenge to an ..... municipal committee. the other civic amenities are also provided by the municipalcommittee. whatever services are provided by the market committee, moga, are available in the principal market yard or sub-market yard and not anywhere else in the rest of the notified market area. the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act. 1976, amending the definition of 'licensee' was challenged by the petitioner as well as some others. the ..... and 6328 of 1987, challenging the vires of market fee levied under the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') are dealt with in part i. part ii deals with cwp no. 2551 of 1988 relating to timber. part iii deals with cwp no. 121 of 1988 challenging the validity of the haryana rural development act, 1986 and cwp no, 821 of 1988 regarding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2005 (HC)

Jai Bhagwan Vs. Teshsildar-cum-A.C.i. Industries and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2005)140PLR11

..... court. the order of the supreme court reads as under:-the vires of the provisions of punjab agricultural produce markets (haryana second amendment and validation act), 1980 which are more or less in identical terms as the punjab agricultural produce markets (punjab amendment) act, 1980 is in question in the present case. the vires of the punjab amendment act was upheld by this court in amar nath om parkash and ors. v. state of ..... . the vires of the validation act, 1980 were challenged which were upheld upto the supreme court. as a sequel to the upholding of ..... /-. on the basis of that all the licenced dealers under the act in the state of haryana applied for refund of rs. 1/- which was paid in excess and got it. in the meantime the state of haryana enacted punjab agricultural produce market, (haryana second amendment and validation) act, 1980 to validate the recovery of the market fee at the original rate and save the refund of the money .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1987 (HC)

Shiv Dayal Singh Ramesh Chander and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1989P& H87; [1988]68STC394(P& H)

..... in the manner indicated in sub-section (2) of section 41. (5) the provisions of this section shall not affect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976.' while upholding the validity of section 23-a, their lordships of the supreme court held as under:--'the submission of the learned counsel was that section 23-a was a blatant ..... 87, ref. to.'10. next in chronological order is the five judges' judgment of the supreme court in kewal krishan puri v. state of punjab, air 1980 sc 1008, in which the validity of certain provisions of the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 (punjab act no. 23 of 1961) was challenged giving a broad meaning to the term 'fee' and widening its scope further, the supreme court held ..... see any justification for characterising a provision like section 23-a as one aimed at validating an illegal levy.'18. the reasoning adopted by the supreme court in upholding the validity of section 23-a of the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961, squarely applies for upholding section 11 of the 1986 act in the present case. the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, fully covers the stand .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 1995 (HC)

The Market Committee Vs. Bakhtawar Mal AmIn Chand

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1996)113PLR8

..... to an amendment to cover certain items of agricultural produce which are not specifically mentioned in the license of licensee. presently we are not concerned with that.5. the decision given ..... section 41:(5) the provisions of this section shall not, affect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce- markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976.'4. a perusal of section 23-a would clearly indicate that it shall be lawful for market committee to retain the fee levied and collected by it from the licensee in excess of that leviable under ..... next purchaser of the agricultural produce,' it shall be presumed unless otherwise proved that such burden was passed on by the licensee. the rest of the clauses are not material for the present purpose. clause (5) of the said section carves 'out an exception in respect of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976, which pertained ..... 15.2.1979. these dates are material because subsequent to these dates. section 23a was introduced in the punjab agricultural produce (markets) act, 1961. as per that amendment by section 23-a, the recovery of amount of excess market fee obtained by the market committee prior to the amendment was subject to the condition that in a dispute regarding the refund of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2008 (HC)

Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and anr. Vs. Registrar ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)2PLR397

..... in the manner indicated in sub-section (2) of section 41.(5) the provisions of this section shall not affect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976.(emphasis added)7. the registrar while taking into consideration the evidence led by the petitioner-corporation has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the ..... licensee under the provisions of punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). it had been dealing with the sale and purchase of the agriculture produce and had paid the market fees within the notified market area at the relevant time under the provisions of the act. prior to the year 1975, the rate of the market fees prescribed under the act was rs. 1.50 ..... per hundred. it was enhanced to rs. 2/- per hundred by punjab agricultural produce (amendment) act no. 14 of 1975. subsequently ..... , again the rate of market fee was further increased from rs. 2 to rs. 3 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1984 (SC)

Amar Nath Om Prakash and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1985SC218; 1984(2)SCALE769; (1985)1SCC345; [1985]2SCR72; [1986]62STC130(SC)

..... committee in the manner indicated in sub-section (2) of section 41.(5) the provisions of this section shall not effect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976.the primary purpose of section 23-a is seen on the face of it; it prevents the. refund of license fee by the ..... and retrieved the situation.2. before we proceed to consider the question at issue in the present case, it will be fair to recall the object and purpose of the punjab agricultural produce markets act and similar enactments in force in other states. par back in 1953. rajamannar, cj and t. l. venkatarama aiyar, j, in kutti keya v. state of madras : air1954mad621 ..... , considered the provisions of the madras commercial crops markets act, 1933, one of the forerunners of the punjab agricultural produce markets act and other similar enactments elsewhere. the general nature of the legislation was explained by venkatarama aiyar. j.. as follows : .the subject-matter of the impugned ..... to be a determined lot. for over a decade, they or those similarly placed have been litigating and impeding the levy and collection of market fee by the market committees constituted under the punjab agricultural produce markets act. some times they have been successful, sometimes they have not. one of the occasions when they appeared to be successful was when this court in kewal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1999 (HC)

Market Committee Vs. Dhanna Mal Sehaj Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)125PLR145

..... suit. the learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on rulia ram bhavishan kumar petitioners v. the state of punjab and anr. respondents, 1976 p.l.j. 428 in support of the contention that even the punjab agricultural produce markets (validation) act, 1976 was struck down as unconstitutional. the finding of the lower court on issue no. 9 as such also requires ..... plaintiff firm. the plaintiff-firm is a commission agents which is called as arhtias and they are running the shop of commission agents in grain market, raikot within the jurisdiction of market committee. under the punjab agricultural produce market act the committee used to charge fee from the arhtias @ rs. 1.50 against a transaction of rs. 100/-. subsequently, it was decided by ..... counsel for the appellant, argued that the suit of the respondent was barred by time. he argued that the trial court failed to interpret section 31 of the punjab agricultural produce market act, 1961 properly and the finding of the lower court was against the statutory provisions of law. the counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court wrongly held ..... may be having separate cause of action against the respondent firm to realise the excess market fee paid by them through the respondent firm. 10. the learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the present suit was not maintainable in view of the punjab agricultural produce (validation) act, 1976 (act no. 34 of 1976). he contended that section 6 of the amended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1983 (HC)

Wataiti Ram Mahabir Parshad Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1984P& H120

..... the committee in the manner indicated in subsection (2) of section 41. (5.) the provisions of this section shall not affect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment and validation) act, i976'now even a plain reading of 'the aforesaid provision manifests that the five salient features thereof are:--(i) it entities the ..... s.s. sandhawalia, c.j. 1. the constitutional validity of section 23-a recently inserted in the principal act by the punjab agricultural produce markets (amendment) act 1981 (punjab act no 7 of 1981) is the primary. and indeed the core question in this set of fifteen cases which stand admitted to a hearing by the division bench. ..... well appraised without reference to their somewhat tortuous legal background. way back in 1961 the punjab agricultural produce markets act (hereinafter called the act) was originally promulgated and section 23 thereof authorised the market committees to levy ad valorem fee on agricultural produce bought or sold by e licensee in the notified market area at rate not exceeding rupee 0.50/- paise for every hundred rupees. this ..... petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce at maur, district bhatinda and is a licensee under the act. in accordance with rule 29 of the punjab agricultural produce markets (general) rules (1982). framed under the aforesaid act the liability to pay the market tee is inter alia on the buyer if he is a licensee, and consequently the writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2003 (HC)

The Market Committee Vs. Des Raj and Co.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2004)136PLR896

..... .(5) the provisions of this section shall not affect the operation of section 6 of the punjab agriculture produce markets (amendment and validation) act, 1976.'11. the constitutional validity of the above reproduced provision was upheld by this court in walayati ram mahabir parshad v. state of punjab, a.i.r. 1984 punjab & haryana 120. in m/s amar nath om parkash's case (supra), their lordships ..... collected by the appellant.2. the plaintiff-respondent is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and other merchandise. it is licensed under the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 act'), the scale of fee payable by the licensees was enhanced from rs. 1.50 to rs. 2.55 per hundred rupees by an ..... case, a.i.r. 1971 s.c. 946 were expressly dissented from. we are, therefore, satisfied that section 23-a of the punjab agricultural produce markets act was within the competence of the punjab legislature and that it was not also otherwise invalid in any manner. the appeals are, therefore, dismissed with costs.'12. in my opinion, the ratio of m/s amar ..... amendment made in the 1961 act vide punjab ordinance no. 4 of 1974. later on, the ordinance was replaced by punjab act no. 13 of 1974. some of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1986 (SC)

Om Parkash Agarwal and ors. Vs. Giri Raj Kishori and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC1707; [1987]164ITR376(SC); 1986(1)SCALE110; (1986)1SCC722; [1986]1SCR149; 1986(1)LC394(SC)

..... appellants in the above appeals are dealers in agricultural produce carrying on business in certain notified market areas set up under the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 in the state of haryana. they have questioned in these appeals the constitutional validity of the haryana rural development fund act, 1983 (haryana act no. 12 of 1983) (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). 2. the act received the assent of the governor of haryana ..... be continued any place for the purchase, sale, storage or processing of agricultural produce, or in the notified area purchases, sells, stores or processes such agricultural produce. a 'notified market area' means any area notified under section 6 of the punjab agricultural produce markets act, 1961 to be a notified market area. 'agricultural produce' means all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as may be prescribed. these definitions are ..... found in section 2 of the act. section 4(1) of the act provides for the creation of a .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //