Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.36 seconds)The Rubber Act, 1947
Section 8 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Rubber Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Tripura Markets Act, 1979
Section 6 in The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Madan Raj Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 July, 1969
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 04:54:46 pm )
S.A.No.441 of 2003
4.3. The plaintiff contends that the cultivation and production of rubber
are already governed by the Rubber Act, 1947, a Central enactment, under
which the Rubber Board regulates registration, licensing, production, replanting,
processing, and transport. Being a registered owner under the Central Act and
holding permits in Form N1 for inter-State movement, the plaintiff submits that
the State has no power to declare rubber as a notified produce under the Tamil
Nadu Act. Any such attempt is repugnant to the Central law under Article 254 of
the Constitution. Reliance is placed on Madan Raj Bhandari v. State of
Rajasthan (AIR 1970 SC 436) and State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch (AIR 1964
SC 1284). It is therefore argued that the Government Orders and consequent
levy of market fee are without authority.