Search Results for "Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1963"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incredible Dying Declaration...
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 182 IPC for Lack of Val...

Search Results for "Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1963"

124 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 124 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Market Committee's Challenge to Exemption of Oil Mills from Marketing Fee. Minister's Order Exempting Mills from Payment of Fee and Supervision Charges Upheld as Valid Exercise of Power Under Section 12 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963.

17 Jun 2005

The Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 8th December 1989 passed by the Minister for Co-oper...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Market Fee on Confectionery and Food Drinks Under APMC Act. Confectionery and Food Drinks Are Not 'Agricultural Produce' Under Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963, and Hence Not Subject to Market Fee.

18 Aug 2017

The petitioner, Cadbury India Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, manufactures confectionery and food drinks at its ...

High Court

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Writ Petition Challenging Appointment of Administrator for Agriculture Produce Market Committee — Appointment of Administrator Without Prior Dissolution of Committee Under Section 47 of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 Held Illegal. The court held that an Administrator cannot be appointed under Section 48 without first dissolving the Committee under Section 47 of the Act.

11 Apr 2022

The petitioner, Laxmikant s/o Mahadeorao Lad, Vice President of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kaij, filed a writ petition challenging the ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Disqualification of Market Committee Members for Non-Payment of Dues Under Maharashtra APMC Act. Rule 41(1)(i) and (k) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 applied to disqualify members who failed to pay arrears to the Market Committee.

4 Jan 2020

The petitioners, Shankarrao Gajanan Choudhary and three others, were elected members of the Market Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Agricul...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Panchayat Samiti Member's Nomination to Market Committee Over Chairman's Claim — Rule 40A of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Rules, 1967 Cannot Override Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The court held that the Panchayat Samiti's resolution electing a member as its representative under Section 13(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 is valid and cannot be overridden by Rule 40A of the Rules.

16 Jul 2015

The petitioner, Rajeshri Arun Munghate, a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Gadchiroli, challenged an order of the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperativ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Administrator for APMC Ghatanji Due to Expiry of Managing Committee's Term. Postponement of Elections Does Not Imply Extension of Tenure Under Section 15A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963.

17 Jun 2011

The petitioners, seven individuals, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Minister's Order Directing Re-election of APMC Newasa and Bhusawal — Model Code of Conduct Cannot Override Statutory Provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. Minister's Order Violated Principles of Natural Justice and Was Without Jurisdiction as Election Process Had Already Commenced Under Section 14 of the Act.

30 Nov -0001

The judgment concerns two writ petitions challenging orders of the Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textile Department, Maharashtra, directing ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Levy of Market Fees on Vanaspati as Edible Oil Under Maharashtra APMC Act. Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Held to Fall Within 'Edible Oils' Entry Added by 1987 Notification; Levy of Fees and Supervision Charges Upheld.

16 Jun 2006

Two writ petitions were filed by companies manufacturing Vanaspati, challenging the levy of market fees and supervision charges by the Mumbai Agricult...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Vice-Chairman of APMC Challenging Removal Under Section 45(1) of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act. Show Cause Notice and Removal Order Quashed for Being Vague and Non-Speaking, Violating Principles of Natural Justice.

9 Apr 2019

The petitioner, an elected Director and Vice-Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Dhamangaon Railway, challenged an order date...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Supersession of Agricultural Produce Market Committee for Violation of Natural Justice and Non-Compliance with Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963. Show-cause notice under Section 45(1) must specify charges and opportunity of hearing must be granted before superseding the Board.

25 Apr 2017

The petitioners, who were the elected Board of Directors of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malegaon, challenged the order of the District ...

2 3 4 5 6

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)