LexAGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE versus SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE v. SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. MAY 7, 1997 (K.S. PARIPOORNAN ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966: Sections 12(1) Expln. l, 2(i), (vi), (x), (xi), (xii), (xvi), 3, 4( 1), 7(1), 33 and 34(1 ). Notified Agricultural Produce-Sale or purchase-Presumption of-The Act limited the statutory presumption to only one factor, namely, "moving" a notified agricultural produce from within the notified market area to a place outside the market area-Whereas the Rules and Bye-laws provided further that such presumption would also be raised if a notified alJlicultura/ produce D was weighed, measured and counted-Held: Such additional presumption is beyond the legislative polic.ir-flence, Rule 74(2) and Bye-law 24(5) are beyond the scope of the Act and ultra vires the Act-Andhra Pradesh (Agricul- tural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1966, Rule 74(2) and Bye-law 24(5). E Sale of Goods Act, 1930 : Sections 19 and 20. Property in goods-1'Copra" supplied from State of Kera/a to Hyderabad pursuant to order placed by purchaser--Dispatch of goods at the risk of purchaser-Goods insured by purchaser-Goods weighed at Hyderabad only F for purchaser's satisfaction----Held : While ascertaining the intention of the parties regard should be had to temis of contract, conduct of parties and circumstances of the case provided in S. 19(2)--lf conditions for applicability of S. 20, namely, that contract of sale is an unconditional contract and is for specific goods in a deliverable state, are satisfied, court has to determine G whether any ''di ff erenl intention appears" in the contract as provided in S. 19(3)-Property in goods passed and sale took place in State of Kera/a and not at Hyderabad-Hence, levy of market fee on the purchase of "copra'~ an agricultural produce, under A.P. (Agrirnltura/ Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, invalid. H Administrative Law : 164 .. - AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMilTEE v. SHAUMAR CHEMICAL 165 Legislative function/power-Delegation of-Held: legislature lays down A : policy and the principles for the guidance of the delegates-Delegate while . making subsidiary rules or regulations cannot widen or constrict the scope of - the Act or the policy. -.< Legislative fu11ction/power-Delegatio11 of-Reasons for giving B . , delegated power to the Government to make Rules stated . i The appellant-Agricultural Market Committee is a statutory body created under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 while the respondent is a licenced trader dealing in "copra" (dried coconut kernel) which it imported from various places in c the State of Kerala for manufacturing coconut oil. The respondent placed an order with a dealer in the State of Kerala in pursuance of which goods were dispatched by lorry to Hyderabad where the respondent after making payment to and receiving documents from the bank, obtained delivery of goods, after weighment. It was one of the terms of the contract between the D parties that the seller would not be liable for any future loss of good and that the goods were being dispatched at the risk of the respondent. The respondents had also obtained insurance of the goods and had paid the policy premium. d, The Assessing Authority who was also ihe Secretary of the Agricul- E tural Market Committee levied the market fee on the respondent who challenged it in appeals filed under Section 12E of the Andhra Pradesh ... (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Act, 1966 but the appeals were dismissed on the technical ground of non-comp,iance with Section 12E(2) of the Act under which the whole amount of market fee had to be deposited F before filing the appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. On the basis of material placed on record, the High Court came to the conclusion that the sale of "copra" took place in the State of Kerala and not at Hyderabad. The High Court further held that the provisions contained in Rule 74(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Market Rules, 1969 and Bye-law 24(5) of the G Bye-laws Committee relating to the 'rule of presumption' were beyond the ~ scope of the Act and, consequently, were bad in law. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Market fee can be levied under the Andhra Pradesh H 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.