Back
1997 (2) JLJ 20
(SUPREME COURT)
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. and others
Civil Appeal Nos. 1811 - 1 4 of 1996; against the order of High Court of M.P.
passed in M.P. No. 140, 139,43 & 44 of 1977; Decided on 10.10.1996.
(2) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 -- Cl. 3 (2) -- price of sugarcane -may be fixed higher than that fixed by Central Government under Cl. 3 ( 1 ). [Para 8]
(3) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 -- Cl. SA -- give power to fix and pay additional price -- it is within the domain to fix higher price than fixed by Central Government. [Para 9]
(4) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 -- Cls. 3 (1) and 3 (2) -- what is prohibited under Cl. 3 (2) is that no lesser price than fixed under Cl. 3 (1) can be fixed -- sugarcane grower should not be compelled to sell the sugarcane for the price lower than the fixed one. [Para 9]
(5) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 -- Cl. 3 (2) -- price of sugar cane fixed by oral agreement -- such agreement is not prohibted -- sugarcane also supplied thereafter -- delivery also accepted -- some of factories also paid the agreed price -- agreement is binding. [Para 10]
(6) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 -- Cls. 2 (k) and 3 (1), (2) -- price agreed to be paid settled within crushing year -- fixed price ‘under Cl. 3 (1) is tentative price -- such agreed price cannot He said to be retrospectively fixed. [Para 11]
(7) Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959 (M.P.) - Ss. 20 and 23 -- payment of price of sugarcane supplied -- Cane Commissioner has power to issue certificate for recovery to Collector -- cess and interest may also be imposed. [Paras 12 to 14]
(8) Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959 (M.P.) - S. 23 (3) -- Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 -- Cl. 3 (2) -- both indicate fixation of price of sugar by agreement -- the price so fixed may be more than one fixed by Central Government under the order. [Para 14]
(9) Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959 (M.P.) - S. 20 (3) -- Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 -- Cl. 3 (2) -- price of sugarcane agreed between the parties -- is a price to be recovered if not paid in time -- such price may be recovered as areas of land revenue with interest etc. AIR 1996 SCW 842 and (1988) 71 STC 444 distinguished. (1994) 73 STC 561 approved. [Paras 17 to 19]
¼1½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼1½ && ds v/khu fu;r xés dh U;wure dher && phuh fuekZrk rFkk xék mxkus okys ds e/; vkilh djkj }kjk c<+kbZ tk ldrh gS && mPprj dher lanÙk djus dk izfr"ks/k ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼2½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼2½ && xés dh dher && [kaM 3¼1½ ds v/khu dsaUnzh; ljdkj }kjk fu;r dher ls vf/kd fu;r dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼3½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 5d && vfrfjDr dher fu;r rFkk lanÙk djus dh ‘kfDr izkIr gksrh gS && dsanzh; ljdkj }kjk fu;r dher ls vf/kd fu;r djuk vf/kdkj&{ks= ds Hkhrj gSA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼1½ rFkk 3¼2½ && [kaM 3¼2½ ds v/khu tks izfr"ks/k gS og ;g gS fd [kaM 3¼1½ ds v/khu fu;r dher ls de dher fu;r ugha dh tk ldrh && fu;r dher ls dher ij xék foØ; djus ds fy, xék mRikndksa dks foo‘k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 9À
¼5½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼2½ && xés dh dher ekSf[kd djkj }kjk fu;r && ,slk djkkj izfrf"k) ugha && rRi‘pkr~ xék Hkh iznÙk && ifjnku Hkh Loh—r && dqN dkj[kkuksa }kjk djkj ikbZ xbZ dher lanÙk Hkh dh xbZ && djkj vkc)dj gSA
¿ iSjk 10À
¼6½ xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 2 ¼V½ rFkk 3¼1½] ¼2½ && lanÙk fd, tkus ds fy, djkj ikbZ xbZ dher isys tkus ds o"kZ ds Hkhrj r; dh xbZ && [kaM 3¼1½ ds v/khu fu;r dher vuafre dher gS && ,slh djkj ikbZ xbZ dher Hkwry{kh :i ls fu;r ugha dgh tk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼7½ xék ¼iwfrZ rFkk Ø; fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 20 rFkk 23 && iznÙk xés dh dher dk lank; && dysDVj dks olwyh ds fy, izek.ki= tkjh djus dh ‘kfDr xék vk;qDr dks gS && midj rFkk C;kt Hkh vf/kjksfir fd, tk ldrs gSA ¿ iSjk 12 ls 14À
¼8½ xék ¼iwfrZ rFkk Ø; fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23¼3½ && xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼2½ && nksuksa esa phuh dh dher dk fu;rhdj.k djkj }kjk bafxr gS && bl izdkj fu;r dher] vkns‘k ds v/khu dsanzh; ljdkj }kjk fu;r dher ls vf/kd gks ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼9½ xék ¼iwfrZ rFkk Ø; fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23¼3½ && xék ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns‘k] 1966 && [kaM 3 ¼2½ && i{kdkjksa ds e/; djkj ikbZ xbZ xés dh dher && ;fn le; ij lanÙk ugha dh tk, rc olwy dh tkus okyh dher gS && C;kt] vkfn lfgr Hkw&jktLo dh cdk;k ds :i esa dher olwy dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh MCY;w 842 rFkk ¼1988½ 71 ,l Vh lh 444 izHksfnrA ¼1994½ 73 ,l Vh lh 561 vuqeksfnrA
¿ iSjk 17 ls 19À
1. These appeals by special leave are filed against the judgment and order dated September 1, 1978 and September 4, 1978 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Misc. Petition Nos. 140, 139,43 and 44 of 1977.
2. These appeals arise from the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 (for short, the' 'Order") and the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959 (for short, the" Act "). It is rather unfortunate that the sugarcane growers who spent their sweat and blood in raising the sugarcane in the years 1974-75, 1975-76 had to wait for 20 years to receive the price of the sugarcane supplied by them to the respondents' factories. The respondent in C.A. 1813/80 is a Hindu Undivided Family represented by its Karta and respondents in other appeals are factories. The Central Government had fixed the price of the sugarcane under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules issued under section 3 (3) (c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at Rs. 8.60 per quintal. Various meetings of the sugarcane growers and the sugarcane factories and their associations, were convened by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and ultimately the agreement got crystallised at the meeting held on March 21, 1976 to fix the final price of the sugarcane at Rs.12/- per quintal for the sugarcane supplied at the factory and Rs. 11.50 per quintal for the sugarcane supplied at other supply centres. Though the sugarcane was supplied by the cane-growers, since theirs amounts could not be paid, the appellant-Government resorted to section 21 of the Act to enforce the liability by recovering the same as arrears of land revenue.The respondents came to challenge the demands by filing the aforesaid writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court in the aforesaid judgments in three appeals has held that since no separate agreement was entered into between the respondents and the sugarcane growers, the liability could not be enforced by way of arrears of land revenue. In C.A. No. 18 11/80 involving the question of interest on account of delayed payment, it was held that since the amount was not paid as per the price fixed under the Order, no liability of interest would be charged thereon.
Therefore, the demand for payment of interest on delayed payment is without authority of law. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. Shri U.N. Bhachawat, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, contended that as per the record produced and the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed in the HighCourt in the writ petitions that there was a specific oral agreement between the sugarcane growers and the factories represented by the Association and many of their representatives personally present except Kaluram' s joint family firm and all of them have agreed to final price of sugarcane. Even with regard to Kaluram's firm, since the meeting was adjourned once, to enable him to be consented, as he was present, the Secretary of the Association contacted him over telephone and he agreed to abide by the agreement. In furtherance thereof, on March 21, 1976 the gentleman agreement has been entered into for the final price of the sugarcane to be supplied by the sugarcane growers. As a consequence, there was an agreement between the owners of the sugar factories and the sugarcane growers. Since the sugarcane growers were not paid the price, in furtherance thereof, the factories are liable to pay the sugarcane price and also the interest on the delayed payment in one appeal. The view taken by the High Court is not valid in law.
4. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that Rules 3 and 5- A of the Order determine the liability to pay the price and the additional price. The Central Government having determined the price of the sugarcane under the Order, there is no power to the State Government, de hors the Order, to fix any agreed price. The concept of agreed price came into force on September 19, 1976 by virtue of Rule 3-A of the Order. Until then, the
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
