Partly allowed

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. v. Market Committee, Sangrur Andanr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2011CWP/19949/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside an impugned order that rejected the petitioner's claim for exemption from market fee. The court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter based on the original records and pass a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Appellate Authority directed to reconsider petitioner's claim of exemption from market fee after verifying original records and hearing both parties.

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. Vs Market Committee… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.19949 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.02.2011

¶4

¶5

M/s. Jai Mata Foods Limited . . . . Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

Market Committee & Anr. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Ms. Sonal Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Mr. SS Rangi, Advocate for the respondents ****

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioner-Company sought exemption from payment of market fee under Rule 30(13) of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 on the plea that it had purchased the wheat and maize outside the State of Punjab and had paid the requisite market fee in the State from where the purchase was made and therefore second time market fee was not leviable under the Rules.

¶19

(2). The afore-stated plea was raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority also, however, the impugned order dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure P16) repeatedly mentions that the petitioner did not produce its records

¶20

2 –

¶21

CWP No.19949 of 2008.doc

¶22

despite notices given due to which its exemption claim could not be examined.

¶23

(3). The petitioner, on the other hand, urges that the records appended with the writ petition were produced before the Appellate Authority.

¶24

(4). In these circumstances, it appears that the factual plea taken by the petitioner-company needs to be scrutinized/verified by the Appellate Authority.

¶25

(5). Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and while setting aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure P16), the Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider and dispose of the above-noticed contention of the petitioner in the light of the original record to be produced by the petitioner, in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶27

17.02.2011 vishal shonkar

¶28

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. v. Market Committee, Sangrur Andanr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. v. Market Committee, Sangrur Andanr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalbir Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.

Anju Chawla Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunder Pal Goyal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.

Anu Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Golden Arrow Residents Welfare Society Vs State of Punjab and Ors.