BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. versus BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 24-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD.
v.
BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
COMMITTEE & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1746 of 2010)
JANUARY 24, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation)
Act, 1963 – s. 2(1)(a) – “Agricultural Produce” – Products “edible
oil”, “Vanaspati” and “sugar” – Applicability of the Act – Held:
Products “edible oil”, “Vanaspati” and “sugar” are agricultural
produce within the meaning of s.2(1)(a) of the Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court rightly held that sugar is a
produce of agriculture coming into being in a processed form
from sugarcane and the absence of the word “manufacture” in
the definition of “agricultural produce” under Section 2(1)(a) of
the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation)
Act, 1963 would not in any way affect the status of sugar as being
an agricultural produce under the Act. [Para 7][841-C]
1.2 So far as “Vanaspati” is concerned, the High Court
referred to entire process as to how “Vanaspati” is produced from
“edible oils” and that “edible oils” are subject to various processes
and the end product of all these processes is “Vanaspati”. The
High Court held that the production of dalda or Vanaspati from
edible oils is thus the result of the edible oils undergoing all these
processes which convert edible oils to a new entity called
“Vanaspati”. Thus, the High Court concluded that “Vanaspati” is
nothing but Hydro Generated Refined Edible Oil and is an
agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the
Act. The conclusion of the High Court that “edible oil”,
“Vanaspati” and “sugar” are agricultural produce within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act is accepted and there is no
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 838
838
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
ground warranting interference with the said findings. [Paras 11,
13][841-H; 842-A-B, E-F]
1.3 Section 13(1A)(a) of the Act states that the area
comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village in Thane Taluka
of Thane District or such areas as may be specified by the State
Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to
time, shall be deemed to be a market area called the Bombay
Market Area and respondent No. 1 is the Market Committee for
that area. [Para 15][842-H; 843-A-B]
1.4 The relevant bills and other documents filed by the
appellant insofar as alleged purchase of sugar from outside the
market area (Section 2(1)(i)) shall be considered as expeditiously
as possible. The direction of the High Court in approaching the
concerned Authority is restricted only to sugar. [Paras 18, 19][844-
A-B]
Champak Lal H. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1980) 4
SCC 329 : [1981] 1 SCR 440 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1981] 1 SCR 440
referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1746
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.06.2006 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1072 of 1991.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1747 of 2010.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Jawahar Lal, Vikas Mehta, Adith Nair,
Nishant Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma, Sarthak Raiza, Ms. Deepa M.
Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. The issue involved in these appeals is
the interpretation of the term “Agricultural Produce” (Section 2(1)(a)
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
of the Act) contained in the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Regulation) Act, 1963.
2. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking the following
declarations:
(i) The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development) and Regulation Act, 1963 is not applicable to sugar,
cashew nuts, refined oil, vanaspati and dry fruits purchased by
the appellant.
(ii) The notification dated 25.09.1987 is illegal and utra vires to
the extent that it adds the above items to the Schedule of the Act.
(iii) The bulk sugar purchased by the appellant is directly from the
Sugar mills located outside the market area of the first respondent
is not covered by the provisions of the Act.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, before the High Court,
the appellant gave up the challenge in respect of “cashew nuts” and
other “dry fruits”.
4. The question falling for consideration in these appeals is whether
the provisions of the Maharashtr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.