Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa v. National Horticulture Board 2026 INSC 385
Whether the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa was entitled to receive the balance subsidy under the NHB–NABARD cold storage scheme after NABARD withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already released.
Note: No legal aspects discussed in this judgment. The issue was whether the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa was entitled to receive the balance subsidy under the NHB–NABARD cold storage scheme after NABARD withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already released.
Case Info
Case Information
Case name and neutral citation:Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa v. National Horticulture Board & Ors., 2026 INSC 385
Coram:Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Judgment date:17 April 2026, Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
Statutes / Laws Referred
The judgment notes that the appellant committee was constituted under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, 1963 (state legislation governing APMCs).It also refers to the Central Government subsidy scheme titled “Capital Investment Subsidy For Construction/Expansion/Modernization of Cold Storages/Storage of Horticultural Produce”, implemented through NHB and NABARD; the operative clause is clause 6 (“Procedure for sanction of project and release of subsidy”), particularly the condition that the remaining 50% subsidy be released after inspection by a Monitoring Committee.
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The issue was whether the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Deesa was entitled to receive the balance subsidy under the NHB–NABARD cold storage scheme after NABARD withdrew the subsidy and sought recovery of the amount already released. The Supreme Court found that the cold storage unit had been completed and commissioned, that the Joint Monitoring Visit itself recommended consideration for final subsidy, and that the appellant and its financing bank had repeatedly requested a fresh inspection and release of the remaining subsidy, contrary to NHB’s assertion that no efforts were made. Setting aside the Division Bench and restoring the Single Judge’s order, the Court directed that the entire subsidy (or at least the final installment, depending on what had been repaid) be released in favour of the appellant.