Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.62 seconds)The Seeds Act, 1966
B.Prabhakara Rao vs Desari Panakalala Rao & Ors & Others on 5 April, 1976
In B. Prabhakara Rao Vs Desari Panakala Rao and others (AIR 1976 SC 1803), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any useful information having a bearing on public interest may be collected from any source and, after public exposure of such information at the hearing and reasonable opportunity to meet it, if any one is adversely affected, put it into the crucible of judgment.
Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011
28. One of the shades of the arguments is that the Forum has wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellants. The contention is that burden of proof is always on the person who asserts a fact and who desires a court to give judgment in his favour on the basis of facts asserted by him. The appellants have cited Rangammal's case (supra) to prove the proposition. There cannot be any controversy with regard to the general principle mentioned in the case. However the judgment has no relevance on the proposition as to the means and manner in which the burden should be discharged. In these
cases the complainants could prima facie prove their case on the basis of the reports of the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Scientists Team. Hence as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case, the burden shifted to the appellants to prove their case.
M/S. National Seeds Corpn. Ltd vs M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr on 16 January, 2012
Apart from that there is a clear proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhusudhan Reddy's case (supra) that a duty is cast under Rule 13 (3) on every seller or supplier to preserve the seeds and a complete record of each lot of seed for 3 years except that any seed sample may be discarded one year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of. The relevant paragraph in the judgments is as follows:-
The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
1