Skip to main content

AGRICULTURAL LAWS- OISINI PODDAR AT LEXCLIQ

 AGRICULTURAL LAWS- OISINI PODDAR AT LEXCLIQ

Loksabha passed two controversial laws on September 17, 2020. Farmers produced trade in 2020, launched a bill, and signed a farmer (delegation and protection) agreement on the 2020 price insurance and farmer services bill. Rajasaba has previously passed a mandatory commodities bill. I received my eyelashes. People in Punjab and Haryana are protesting to bring the audience back. Essentials Amendment Bill: The 1955 Central Commodity Bill empowers the central government to control the production of essentials and distribute the supply of essentials. Farmer produce trade and commerce bill:This bill give the power to the farmer to sell their produce in the Mandi Or aagriculture produce marketing committies who in term are regulate by different state legislation.

Farmer (empowerment and production) agreement of price assurance and farm services bill: under this bill farmers given permission for contract farming. This bill empower the farmer to engage in agri business firm, processor, wholesalers, etc. For farm service and sales of future farming produce at a mutually agreed rumunerative price. These bills as a bane:As per the government statement these bills make a farmer easier to sell his produce directly to private buyer and can sell his produce anywhere and to anyone he want to sell. However, farmers practicing large-scale farming are refused to accept these bills for many reasons, and they consider it bad for them. As we know, 90% of Indians are engaged in agriculture and most of them are market dependent. Therefore, they believe that crop failures are driving them into debt and it may not be possible to secure competitive prices for their produce. They felt that the government had handed them over to a large corporation. As the government said, a farmer can sell his produce to anyone he wants, but the main question is how a small farmer can store his produce. And how do they have access to store facilities and shipping costs? Also, is he not sure if the company will give him a reasonable price for his products? Thus, many questions arise before them.

Also, what happens if a farmer who is engaged in contract farming becomes a dispute after contract farming? Therefore, it will be difficult for farmers to deal with them. Therefore, agriculture is unsustainable and if farmers are suffering from business, they may eventually be forced to commit suicide, putting them in a difficult position. The point is that in a country where 86% of farmers have only 1 or 2 hectares of land, the product can be taken far away. They clearly put the farmers in the hands of private parties and there are no safeguards or disciplinary rules regarding pricing. Also, it's not clear how this private marketing system actually works.

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more