Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1976 Section 49 Penalty For Not Complying With Directions Under Sub Section 2 Of Section 22 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: delhi agricultural produce marketing regulation act 1976 section 49 penalty for not complying with directions under sub section 2 of section 22 Page 1 of about 340,561 results (0.227 seconds)Fruit and Vegetable Commission Agents and ors. Vs. Delhi Agricultural ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT333
to license, lease or sell shops/space at the new mandi.6. Delhi Agricultural Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 was promulgated. The said act would reveal that it intends to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce and establishment of markets in the National Capital Territory promulgated. The said act made provisions regulating marketing of agricultural produce and establishment of markets for sale of agricultural produce in the powers of the marketing committee.8. Vide Section 55(2)(i) the marketing committee has the power to acquire, hold and dispose of agricultural produce specified in the declaration.'10. Undisputably, since power to regulation admission to and impose conditions for use of a market Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board' was constituted as per the said act. Mandate of the Act was to be carried out by the said Act. With effect from 2.6.99, the Act of 1976 stood repealed and was replaced by the Delhi Agricultural Produce the purpose of carrying out its duties.9. Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act reads as under:-'(3) On a declaration in the nature thereof, or any other writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No.5 to issue allotment/demand letter in respect of big shops to the Commission Agents Wholesale dealers at New Subzi Mandi Okhla.Sir, With reference to your letter No. FV/CA/300/97 dated shops constructed for wholesalers/commission agents. Letters of the DDA dated 22.1.1998 and 7.7.2004 definitely show that DDA asserts its ownership right members inasmuch as DDA is bound by its letter dated 22.1.1998, reiterated on 7.7.2004. As per the petitioners, its representations dated
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRamesh Industries and ors. Vs. the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT699; 2005(83)DRJ617
Section 5 deals with the establishment and composition of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board. It was, thereforee, the statutory duty and processing of agricultural produce and the establishment of market for agricultural produce in the Union Territory of Delhi and for matters regulation of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce and the establishment of market for agricultural produce in the on the coming into effect of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998 on 2nd June, 1999. As is found enacted by Parliament in order to 'provide for the better regulation of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce constituted and continued to function for several years. The 1976 Act stands repealed on the coming into effect of the Delhi was constituted and continued to function for several years. The 1976 Act stands repealed on the coming into effect of the its Board members or any defect in the Constitution thereof. Section 16 will have effect only in respect of the Board Under these circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Board to carry out allotments on the lines agent that they would not claim any space in the subject 'grainmandi'. thereforee, at that time the Board was not in obligation of the Government to establish the Board immediately after 2.6.1999. It is also the admitted position of the Respondent that Even in the proceedings of the Allotment Sub-Committee held on 22.1.1990 a substantial variance with the Resolution of 3/1989 had surfaced,
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Narela, Delhi Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(SC)433; [2008]305ITR1(SC); JT2008(10)SC17; 2008(11)SCALE540; (2008)9SCC434; 2008AIRSCW6285; 2008(6)Supreme520; 2008(11)SCALE540
260A of the 1961 Act. By impugned decision dated 2.6.06, Delhi High Court following its earlier judgment in the case of deemed to be local authority;CHAPTER IIICONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD17. Powers and functions of the Board - (1) 10(20) of the 1961 Act were not attracted to 'Agricultural Produce Marketing Societies' or 'Agricultural Market Boards' even when they may considered necessary for efficient functioning of the Board or the Marketing Committees. (p) To transfer or to provide marketing technology and DEFINITIONS.- In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is ('1998 Act', for short). The provisions of the said 1998 Act enjoin upon the appellant to provide the facilities for marketing be a local authority even after the said amendment to Section 10(20) of the 1961 Act. According to learned Counsel, since apart from performing other functions and duties such as superintendence, direction and control of markets for regulating the marketing of agricultural make recommendations to the Director for establishing principal market and sub-markets as per provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 22; (b) and Municipality, as referred to in Article 243(d) and Article 243P(e) of the Constitution of India, Municipal Committees and District Boards, and sub-markets as per provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 22; (b) to approve proposal for providing infrastructural facilities in the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDelhi Administration Vs. Munshi Ram Ram Niwas and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1230; ILR1984Delhi588
Delhi made on February 19, 1963 the Order called the Delhi Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1963 (for short called the Order). from exploitation. Chapter Ii provides for the constitution of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board. The establishment of markets and constitution of Market Mandi for carrying on his business or marketing of agricultural produce (which includes khandsari).(3) In compliance with the order of A.C.P. use of any place in the market area for the marketing of agricultural produce or for operating therein as a trader The marketing legislation provides a scheme for the establishment and regulation of markets for the purchase and sale of notified agricultural legislature has not incorporated the non obstinate clause in the Act. However. I feel that the two statutory provisions can harmoneously 1967. Some amendments were made in the year 1974 and 1976. Section 6-A(1) at the relevant time reads as under: (1) under section 7 of the E.C. Act.(15) The provisions of section 6-A are in pari materia with the provisions of section be executed.(14) Section 7 of the E.C. Act provides for penalty, if any person contravenes any Order made under section 3, business or marketing of agricultural produce (which includes khandsari).(3) In compliance with the order of A.C.P. (Special Cell) Crime Branch, Delhi, prices. The licensees are also required to comply with any directions that may be given to him by the Administrator of produce. The grant of licenses is provided in Section 34 subject to the Rules made in this behalf. A Market Committee India in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture dated June 28, 1961 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question as
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAgriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Potato and Onion Merchant Ass ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT423
license granted by the licenser under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976. (C) No person shall Association dated 1.4.79, fell under Section 34 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) and between a trader and a trader) in respect of agricultural produce other than poultry, cattle, sheep and goats and such other use of any place in the market area for the marketing of agricultural produce or for operating therein as a trader, market fee for its activities. Section 33 which deals with regulation of marketing produce gives an indication as to the purposes furnish the list of members and the list of the actual occupants of the sheds. This was because there were serious Section 34 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) and could have, thereforee, been revoked terms of the license and in exercise of powers under Section 25(2)(f) of the Act. thereforee, it is open to us (1) but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), the Director may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by order, any offence under this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), the contained in Section 34. In fact Section 25(2)(c) and Section 25(2)(h) and (i) are general, while Section 34 is a particular were found to be correct. Plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 22.694. On 4.7.94, the Committee asked the plaintiff to handover vacant/peaceful
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRajinder Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT682
the allegation that the Government of Nctd, has formed the Delhi State Agriculture Marketing Board and issued notifications on 6th October, the petitioners were nominated as non-official members of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (for short the Board) under Section 5(l)(b) of of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of the agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for the agricultural produce in Government of Nct of Delhi has formed Delhi State Agriculture Marketing Board and issued a notification on 6th 0ctober,93 nominating membeRs. November, 1976 with the object to provide for the better regulation of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of the agricultural incidental thereto. To achieve this object. Section 5 of the Act provided that the Administrator shall establish a Board to be follows : The Act came into force on 5 November, 1976 with the object to provide for the better regulation of in the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3. (16) Section 19A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals 6 October, 1993 was cancelled, there was no question of complying with the procedure laid down for removal of a nonofficial the Constitution. (22) It is well settled that unless the directions or orders issued by the Election Commission are manifestly perverse this Act or under the rules made there under may, subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may it is stated that on receipt of a complaint, dated 26 October, 1993, from one M/s. Mars Advertising Pvt. Ltd on Jain, J. (1) In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the issues involved and the prayers are
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPotato and Onion Merchants Association Vs. Chairman, Delhi Agricultura ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1437; 56(1994)DLT547; 1994(30)DRJ657
of the powers contained-in sub-section 2(e) of Sec.25 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as other than poultry, cattle, sheep and goats and such other agricultural produce as may be prescribed; and (b) may also specify- any other capacity in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce or may, after recording its reasons in writing thereforee, refuse termed as notice contemplated by sub-sec.(3) of Sec.35 of the Marketing Act. As there is no valid revocation of the license license agreement dated 7.2.79 and in terms of the Marketing Act and relevant rules framed there under there cannot be two of Sec.34 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976. Sections 34 and 35 of the Marketing Act are as Sec.34 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976. Sections 34 and 35 of the Marketing Act are as under:- to the notices dated 4.7.94 and 14.6.94, with a further direction that the defendants be restrained from implementing the memorandum dated in sub- section (1) but subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Director may, for reasons to be recorded in argued that the plaintiff is a duly registered association having 213 members. It is the case of the plaintiff that certain
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSmt. Bhagwan Devi Vs. the Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR374(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT411; 2006(90)DRJ86
aforesaid, Justice Arun Kumar (Retd., 10, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 (Phone : 2301-2175 is appointed as the filing a revision petition under Section 121 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation Act, 1998. The said section reads as brought into force was the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce and establishment of markets for agricultural produce. That is not following object:An Act to provide for the better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural with the following object:An Act to provide for the better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets 30.10.1963 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of that Act on 10.01.1969. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner arbitrator or making a reference or disputes by reference to Sections 8, 9 and 20 shall not arise. Secondly, there may agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration of the Managing Director, Jammu & Kashmir State Forest Corporation. The Court observed that noticed herein-above, were also quoted with approval.21. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Division Bench (k aforesaid constitutes an arbitration clause between the parties.ISSUE NO. 2 :31. The second issue arises from the objection of the case of Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta's case (supra was delivered on 22.10.1980 and is, thus, the later judgment.22. The Apex Court had
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTOkhla Mandi Whole-sale Traders Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Agricu ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi374; 81(1999)DLT3
to the grant of license under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Vegetable Commission Agents Wholesale Traders Association (Regd.) and Anr. v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and Anr.) decided on March 16, 1995. grant of license under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by them keeping in view the limited space available for marketing operations in the Mandi. The remaining 'B' Category licences issued of the directions of Section 35 of the Act and Regulation 18 of the Rules and respondent No. 1 has not under the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules framed the provisions of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules framed there taking recourse to the right of appeal as provided under Section 36 of the Act or any other remedy as may the proposition that the directions contained therein have not been complied with and particular reference is made to the following paragraphs it is contended that there is clear violation of the directions of Section 35 of the Act and Regulation 18 of the Rules and the A.P.M.C. Act. The answering respondent humbly submits that vide this process, the respondent No. 1 is issuing licences issued on small shops in Okhla sub-yard.'3. Respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the aforesaid application wherein averments are
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTEast Delhi Fruits and Vegetables Thok Vikreta Association and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005CriLJ83; 123(2003)DLT401
the market area without obtaining the requisite license under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act. As per rules of the market area without obtaining the requisite license under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act. As per rules of the marketing petitioners did not dispute that as per the Delhi Agricultural Produce Market Regulations Act, turnover fee is payable by traders who without obtaining the requisite license under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act. As per rules of the marketing committee, for obtaining the requisite license under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act. As per rules of the marketing committee, for business being liable to be proceeded under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, if the charge is of violating an order of the office-bearers of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board and Gazipur Subzi Mandi, APMC Shahdara, Delhi.4. Grievance of the petitioners is that that the outstanding amounts referred to in the order dated 22.1.2002 were in respect of outstanding market fee. I may additionally cleared the outstanding amounts in terms of the order dated 22.1.2002.15. Position appears to be that the petitioners were illegally acting
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>