# BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD v. BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE & ANR

- **Citation:** [2019] 1 S.C.R. 838
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-01-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1746 of 2010
- **Bench:** R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/britannia-industries-ltd-v-bombay-agricultural-produce-marketing-committee-anr-33437
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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][844A-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

## Text

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][844A-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 Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Regulation) Act, 1963 (Marketing Act) are applicable to the products
"edible oil", "Vanaspati" and "sugar"?
5. We have heard Mr. Jawahar Lal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 - Agricultural
Market Committee.
6. Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 defines "agricultural produce" as
under:-
2(1). In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(a) "agricultural produce" means all produce (whether
processed or not) of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry,
apiculture, pisciculture and forest specified in the Schedule.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 unambiguously shows that the
agricultural produce which are to be covered by the sweep of the Act
necessarily has to be specified in the Schedule.
7. As pointed out by the High Court, "sugarcane" has been
separately listed under Item VI in the Schedule along with Gul and Sugar
and thus the intention of the Legislature is to treat sugar as a produce of
sugarcane, which is a separate agricultural produce. 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 Act would not in any way affect the status of sugar as
being an agricultural produce under the Act.
8. Admittedly, "sugarcane" has been separately listed under Item
VI in the Schedule along with Gul and Sugar and hence, the Committee
has the power of enforcing its statutory right under Section 31 of the
Marketing Act to levy market fees on the marketing of sugar in its market
area.
9. So far as "sugar" is concerned, the High Court rejected the
contention of the appellant by holding that sugar was included in the
Schedule of the Act originally and it came to be deleted from Item VI by
a notification dated 13.04.1982 and it is not as if for the first item that
sugar is included in the agricultural produce by notification dated
25.09.1987. After referring various process involved in bringing out the
sugar, the High Court has held that the sugar is an "agricultural produce"
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The High Court also
held that the intention of the Legislature is to treat sugar as produce of
"sugar cane" as it is added along with other items. The High Court held
that the absence of word "manufacture" would not affect the status of
sugar as being an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section
2(1)(a) of the Act.
10. So far as the "edible oil" and the "Vanaspati" are concerned,
the High Court has held that they are agricultural produce within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.
11. So far as "Vanaspati" is concerned, the High Court referred
to entire process as to how "Vanaspati" is produced from "edible oils"
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
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 Marketing Act.
12. In Champak Lal H. Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1980) 4
SCC 329, this Court held as under:-
"11. .....Oil will remain oil if it retains its essential properties and
merely because it has been subjected to certain processes would
not convert it into a different substance. In other words, although
certain additions have been made to and operations carried out on
oil, it will still be classified as oil unless its essential characteristics
have undergone a change so that it would be a misnomer to call it
oil as understood in ordinary parlance......"
Relying upon Champak Lal case, the High Court held that oil
will remain oil even if it has been subject to certain processes and held
that "edible oil" is an "agricultural produce" within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(a) of the Marketing Act.
13. We fully agree with the conclusion of the High Court that
"edible oil", "Vanaspati" and "sugar" would fall within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(a) of the Marketing Act - agricultural produce. We do not
find any good ground warranting interference with the findings of the
High Court that "edible oil", "Vanaspati" and "sugar" are agricultural
produce within the meaning of Section 2(1)(a) of the Marketing Act.
14. Contention of the appellant is that it procures sugar from the
sugar mills which are located beyond the limits of the market area of
respondent No.1 and therefore, the said transactions do not take place
within the market area so as to empower respondent No.1 to levy market
fees under Section 31 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules on the
sugar produced from outside the market area.
15. Section 13(1A)(a) of the Act states that the area comprising
Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village in Thane Taluka of Thane District
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
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.
16. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that the appellant is
not a buyer within the meaning of Section (2)(1)(ca) as bulk sugar is
purchased from outside the market area, the High Court observed:
"Unless the sugar procurement is done by the petitionercompany within the area of Greater Mumbai and Turbhe Village
of Thane Taluka of Thane District or any other area notified by
the Government of Maharashtra to be a part of the market area
of respondent No. 1, it cannot levy market fees on sugar. The
respondent No. 1 has no power to levy market fees under Section
31 of the Act on the entire quantity of sugar that arrives within its
market area on the procurement made by the petitioner-company
and directly from the sugar factories which are located within the
market area of respondent No. 1. It is, therefore, necessary that
the petitioner-company places before the respondent No. 1 all its
record to show that sugar was procured/purchased from the places
outside the market area of respondent No. 1 and if the respondent
No. 1 on a verification is satisfied, to that extent the respondent
No. 1 shall have no authority to levy market fees under Section 1
of the Act. This is an issue which will have to be examined by the
Market Committee afresh and it is imperative for the petitionercompany to submit all the records before the respondent No. 1
for such a verification and this should be done at the earliest
possible. We have no doubt in our mind that the respondent No.
1- Market Committee shall have powers to levy market fees under
Section 31 of the Act only on the quantity of sugar that has been
purchased/procured within its market area and it cannot levy
market fees on the entire sugar quantity that is received by the
petitioner-company........."
17. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General,
submitted that as per direction of the High Court, if the appellant is able
to produce relevant documents, Respondent No. 1 shall consider the
same by passing appropriate orders.
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. v. BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE [R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
18. 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. It is
stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the issue is concerned
only limited to the period from 01.07.1988 to 03.03.2004.
19. We make it clear that the direction of the High Court in
approaching the concerned Authority is restricted only to sugar.
20. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
Nidhi Jain
 Appeals dismissed.