1992 JTR(SC) 281
1993 Supp3 SCC 361
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BHARAT TRADING COMPANY
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided on March 31, 1992
The central legal point established is the classification of raskat as an agricultural produce based on its nature and precedents.
Act Referred :UTTAR PRADESH KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI ADHINIYAM : S.2(a)
raskat - agricultural produce - The court held that raskat, an inferior quality of gur, could be considered an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(a) U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, based on precedents and its nature as an inferior quality of gur.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether raskat could be held as an agricultural produce under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that raskat, being an inferior quality of gur, could be considered an agricultural produce based on precedents and its nature.
Issues: The main issue was the classification of raskat as an agricultural produce under the relevant law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents and the nature of raskat as an inferior quality of gur to classify it as an agricultural produce.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and raskat was held to be an agricultural produce.
raskat - agricultural produce - The court held that raskat, an inferior quality of gur, could be considered an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(a) U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, based on precedents and its nature as an inferior quality of gur.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether raskat could be held as an agricultural produce under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that raskat, being an inferior quality of gur, could be considered an agricultural produce based on precedents and its nature.
Issues: The main issue was the classification of raskat as an agricultural produce under the relevant law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents and the nature of raskat as an inferior quality of gur to classify it as an agricultural produce.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and raskat was held to be an agricultural produce.
( 1 ). The short question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether raskat which is an inferior quality of gur could be held to be an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (a) U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. Having regard to the fact that it is nothing more than an inferior quality of gur applying Rathi Khandsari udyog v. State of U. P. and Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan we hold it as an agricultural produce. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.