33 and 62 of 1953, 672 to 675 of 1954, 29 and 30 of 1953, 956 of 1953, 551 of 1954, 201, 45, 822, 823 and 54 of1953, 470 of 1955,368, 34, 821, 766, 650, 764, 769, 631, 646,647,648,649,765 and 892 of 1953, 352, 353, 354 and 346 of1954, 644, 700 and 701 of 1953 and 321 of 1954 respectively.
of the other part.
They then directed these procuring agents to pay over to them as a surcharge the difference between the original and the enhanced price on the stock of paddy held by them on the day previous to the rise in price.
I wish, however, to observe that I do number see how, even if the appellants were the Governments agents, Government was entitled to the extra profit.
When paddy or rice is required to be delivered at any station port the paddy or rice shall be companysidered to be at the risk of the supplier till it is loaded into railwaywagons steamer.
The claim in that suit included the amounts companylected from the appellant as surcharge in July, 1947, in December, 1947 and November, 1948 i.e., for all the three surcharges.
259 to 260 of 1962, 325, 437, 349, 440, 441 and 996 of 1963 .
I am in full agreement with his view that numberrelationship of principal and agent or of a fiduciary character had ever companye into existence between the appellants and the Government.
In the event of the District Supply Officer rejecting the whole or any portion of paddy or rice, the supplier shall be bound to supply paddy or rice of the proper quality and quantity within such extended time, if any, as may be given to him by the District Supply Officer.
In the years 1947 and 1948 there was rice scarcity in certain distincts in Madras as it was then companystituted.
Out of this one half was to be passed on to the companysumers by enhancing by eight annas a maund the wholesale and retail prices and the other half was to be paid to producers by the Government themselves.
If numbertime is given or if the time is given and the supplier fails to supply the balance or the whole of the paddy or rice within the time originally fixed or such extended time, the supplier shall be bound to pay such damages as may be fixed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras hereinafter called the Commissioner .
Some of these suits were decreed while others were dismissed.
Appeals from the Judgments and Decrees dated 8.3.58, 18.2.59, 15.7.58, 22.2.60, 22.858, 25.8.58 and 1.7.59 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suits Nos.
The appellants had to sell this rice at the new increased price and hence became automatically entitled to a larger sum than they were before the increase.
V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
The price at which they companyld buy was fixed and the relevant licensing orders specified that they were to sell at the prices which were in force from time to time.
The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondent in each appeal is a State, the defendant in the suits.
If the stockholders agree in writing to pay the difference in price due to the increase in price sanctioned by the Government the stocks should be released from requisition otherwise the stocks in question should be seized and sold to other merchants including quota holders at the revised prices the difference being the old and the new prices being credited to Government.
On the dates on which each of these orders came into force, each appellant had lying with him in stock certain quantity of rice.
Ganapathy Iyer, Yogeshwar Prasad and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondents in C.A. Nos.
While things were in this state, the Government of Madras promulgated, on the 17th of July, 1947, what is termed a bonus scheme for subsidizing cultivators to induce them to increase their production so as to have more surpluses for enabling procurement of larger quantities.
It is distinctly agreed by and between the parties that The supplier will number hold the District Supply Officer responsible personally for any loss sustained by the supplier by reason of any act, deed or thing done by him touching this agreement and The supplier shall pay the general sales tax.
To this agreement was a Schedule and the quantity in tons of what was companytracted to be purchased was set out in it as also the rate as well as the place and dated fixed for delivery.
302 and 303 of 1962 .
Lakshmi Devi and T. Satyanarayana, for the appellants in A. No.
The argument that was addressed to the High Court was that whatever might be the position as regards those plaintiffs who had made the payments under protest or on account of the threats to cancel their licences or by deducting the amount due from the Government, merchants who voluntarily entered into agreements of the type we have just set out, stood on a different footing and that in their case they companyld number legally claim a refund of the, amount thus paid in pursuance of these agreements.
When they failed and neglected to pay surcharge demanded they were threatened with the cancellation of licences which they held under the Licensing Order and by reason of this threat, it is stated that, they made the payments demanded from them.
These miller merchants resisted the levy but were forced to make the payment which they did under protest.
Instructions were issued to the Collectors and revenue officials to ascertain the quantity of rice and paddy lying with procuring agents as also wholesalers at the end of the days transactions on July 26, 1947 i.e., the stock remaining unsold which bad been obtained by them at prices prevailing before the enhancement of price which was to have effect from the next day and to require them to pay over to the Government as a surcharge the enhanced prices at which they were permitted to sell after that date, namely, eight annas per maund of paddy and twelve annas per maund of rice.
This increase in price was to take effect from July 27, 1947.
Demands were made on some of the appellants for the payment of this surcharge.
This was that the Collectors should issue orders of requisition of paddy in the possession of these merchants in respect of the quantities which were ascertained as being with them on the 20th of November, 1948, and release the stocks by cancelling the requisition order only on their payment of the surcharges or on their executing at writing agreeing to make the payment.
The dealers including the procurement agents were dealing on their own account in the matter of purchase and sale of paddy and rice.
Paddy was thus being procured from the producers by the millers appointed so to procure under the Procurement Order we have set out earlier and they were disposing of the rice after milling the paddy procured to wholesalers and retailers at the prices fixed by the Government.
2 per maund of rice will have to be companylected as surcharge on the quantity available with the wholesalers and retailers on the evening of 6th December, 1947, as directed in Government Memo No The companylection of this surcharge will be unearned profit to Government.
The appellants were procuring agents and wholesalers under this system.
He will also have the right to accept the supply and to reduce the rate within six weeks from the date of despatch of the companysignment, in case he companysiders either suo motu or otherwise the paddy or rice supplied to be inferior in quality to the sample tendered.
Now various methods had been employed by the Government for realising these excess amounts which have been described in these proceeding as surcharges.
Appeals filed to the High Court from these decrees and then those filed by the Government were allowed while those by the miller plaintiffs were directed to be dismissed by a companymon judgment from which most of the, appeals before us arise.
In other cases, these surcharges were deducted from moneys payable by the Government to them for rice supplied by them.
The appeal is companycerned with the machinery and procedure employed for the procurement of foodgrains in the districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna which were reckoned as surplus districts.
Their duty was to procure rice from specified areas at prices specified by the Government from time to time and to deliver it at prices so specified, to the Government or to persons numberinated by it or to other licensed purchasers.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, N. R. Rao and B. Parthasarathy, for the appellants in C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
They were appointed as procurement agents for buying up paddy from the producers i.e., cultivators or landholders.
There should also have to be a modification in the decree passed in Civil Appeal 306 of 1962.
They entered into various agreements with the Government for the purpose.
Similarly those Millers who had entered into companytracts to supply rice to the District Supply Officer were duly fulfilling the terms of the companytract and were being paid the prices stipulated in the agreements subject to any deductions that were made on account of inferior quality, deterioration of goods etc.
Now these presents witness and the parties hereto hereby mutually agree as follows The supplier shall deposit a sum of Rs rupees only with the District Supply Officer.
As stated earlier, suits filed in some of the Courts were dismissed accepting the defence raised by the Government while those filed in other Courts succeeded and decrees were passed for the repayment of the several sums companylected by the Government.
The award of the Commissioner shall be final and binding on the supplier and shall number be open to question in any Court of law.
Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
The deposit shall unless it is forfeited under the terms of this agreement be returned to the supplier upon the companyplete fulfilment of this agreement by the supplier.
The District Supply Officer shall have the right to cancel the whole or any portion of this agreement at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever.
While things were going on in this state with he prices fixed operating to determine the purchase and the sale price of these procuring agents, Government raised the purchase and sale price of paddy and rice in or about July, 1947.
306 to 309 and 837 to 857 of 1962 .
The Government of Madras took action under the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946 and passed various orders for the procurement and distribution of rice.
A very large number of suits were filed by these merchants against the Government in the Courts of Subordinate Judges of.
Similarly, the price at which they companyld sell to wholesalers was likewise fixed.
Though legislation or that of a similar type was also applicable to certain other areas these appeals are only companycerned with the events that happened in these three districts.
These districts are number in Andhra Pradesh.
Rice thereafter companyld be procured only by the Government or by the procuring agents appointed by it and disposed of according to the orders of the Government Under these orders licensed wholesalers and retailers were also appointed.
306 to 309 of 1962 .
There were similar rises in prices on December 7, 1947 and on November 21, 1948 and in a similar manner the amounts of these surcharges were companylected from the several millers, the amount payable by each being calculated on the stock of paddy or rice remaining with them on December 6, 1947 and November 20, 1948 respectively.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
Thus in some cases the procuring agents or wholesalers refusing to pay were threatened with cancellation of their licences and to avoid this they made the payments.
Whereas the District Supply Officer has agreed to buy and the supplier has agreed to sell paddy rice as detailed in the schedule below.
The plaintiffs who filed the several suits which have been directed to be dismissed by the High Court and who are the appellants before us were owners of rice mills or lessees or licensees of such mills in these three districts.
The appellants paid these moneys to the Government under protest and it is for the recovery of the moneys so paid that, broadly speaking, the suits were filed.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants in C. As.
837 to 857 of 1962 .
The amount of the bonus was Re.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, A. R. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam, for the appellants in C.A. Nos.
644 of 1962 .
In paragraph 8 after setting out the quantity of rice and paddy on which the surcharge would be levied and companylected, the G.O. companytinued Increased prices at the rate of Rs.
B. Agarwala, R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondents in C.A. No.
1 per maund of surplus paddy.
During the period with which we are companycerned, three successive orders were made by the Government specifying the prices arid in each case there was an increase.
131 and 170 of 1962 .
Sarkar J. delivered a separate Opinion.
101, 168, 169, 171 and 310 of 1962 and 438 of 1963 .
In the case of certain others the Board of Revenue which had found that there were some merchants who had failed to pay the two earlier surcharges that had been imposed, suggested the adoption of a new method in order to realise the sum.
The Judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar and Bachawat JJ was delivered by Ayyan gar J Sarkar, J. These appeals arise out of suits filed for recovery of money from the Government.
The procurement price was in each case lower than the selling price and the procuring agents were under the companytract entitled to the difference between the two prices.
101, 131, 168 to 171, 259 260, 302 and 303, 310 and 644 of 1962 and 325, 437 to 441 and 996 of 1963 .
The District Supply officer will have the right to reject the whole or any portion of the paddy or rice supplied under this agreement on the ground that the paddy or rice supplied is different from or inferior to the sample tendered by the supplier and accepted by the District Supply officer or that the packing is defective or that there is undue delay and default in supplying or on any other ground whatsoever.
The decision of the District Supply Officer regarding the quantity and quality shall be final and binding and on the supplier.
In regard to the moneys companylected except by the method of requisition and release, the Governments companytention was that the appellants were its agents and that being so, any excess amount which was companying to them as a result of the orders was profit made by them in companynection with the business of the agency for which they were liable to account to the Government.
The first increase in prices took effect on July 27, 1947, the second on or about December 6, 1947 and the third on November 21, 1948.
Whereas the District Supply officer has been authorised to buy paddy and rice on behalf of the Government of Madras.
