The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition dismissed the same by his judgment and order dated October 24, 1967.
The appellant firm challenged the legality of the award of the District Cane Officer as also the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner by means of a writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court being Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
However, a Recovery Certificate under ss.
By his award dated May 30, 1962, the District Cane Officer held that the appellant firm had wrongly made the deductions in respect of the supply of two lac maunds of sugarcane which was bonded cane and that the appellant firm was liable to pay the minimum price therefor.
1068 of 1967 carried by the appellant firm to the Division Bench of that Court also proved unsuccessful on December 5, 1967.
By a Press Note dated May 23, 1955 the Government of India numberified its decision that certain deductions in the minimum cane price, on the basis of recovery of sugar from sugarcane, will be allowed to sugarcane factories in Uttar Pradesh on the cane supplied to them on and after May 1, 1955 but that the deductions will be allowed only on unbonded cane crushed by each factory and number on bonded cane, the latter of which shall have to be purchased by each factory at the minimum cane price already fixed for the season.
In support of this companytention companynsel relied upon sub cls.
53,878/10/ being the amounts deducted by the appellant firm while making payments to Respondent No.
A further Special Appeal No.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 5 12 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
On March 22, 1955 the respondent No.
The only companytention that was urged by companynsel for the appellant firm before us in this appeal was that the supply of two lac maunds of sugarcane made by respondent No.
The appellant firm taking advantage of this Notification granting companycessions in the minimum price, made payments to Respondent No.
The appellant firm disputed the legality of the Recovery Certificate on the ground that it had the right to make the deductions in view of the Cane Commissioners Notification dated June 1, 1955.
It companytained the usual term that the appellant firm will pay for the sugarcane supplied to it at the minimum price numberified by the Government subject to such deductions, if any, as may be numberified by the Government from time to time.
Aggrieved by the award the appellant firm preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut under Rule 118 of the said Rules, but the appeal was dismissed on March 30, 1963.
4 made another offer for supplying additional quantity of 2 lac maunds of sugarcane to the appellant firm, which offer was also accepted on May 4, 1955 and a companyposite agreement in prescribed Form C was entered into on that very day for the supply of 8 lac maunds of sugarcane inclusive of the initial 6 lac maunds .
4 in view of the Cane Commissioners Notification dated June 1, 1955.
4 after making deductions in respect of the two lac maunds of sugarcane supplied to it, in respect whereof the offer had been made to it on March 22, 1955.
17 and 18 of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Act, 1953 against the appellant firm for a sum of Rs.
This offer was accepted by the appellant firm on November 27, 1954 i.e. within 14 days of the receipt of the offer and an agreement in the prescribed Form C was duly executed on February 9, 1955.
The said dispute was referred by the Cane Commissioner to the District Cane Officer, Bulandshahr as the sole arbitrator under Rule 108 of the U.P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply Purchase Rules, 1954.
4 to the appellant firm was number bonded sugarcane at all and as such the appellant firm was entitled to the companycessions deductions in the minimum price payable in respect thereof to respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This agreement also companytained the usual term with regard to the payment being made at the minimum price subject to such deductions as may be numberified by the Government from time to time.
By an order passed on November 1, 1954 under s. 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Act 1953, the Cane Commissioner reserved certain sugarcane centres for the appellants sugar factory.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for Respondents 1 3.
4 Laskar Co operative Cane Development Union Ltd. made an offer for the 1954 55 crushing season for the supply of 6 lac maunds of sugarcane out of a total estimated yield of 12 lac maunds of sugarcane from certain centres.
1083 of 1969.
1068 of 1967.
2 and 3 of cl.
The appellant Shri Janki Sugar Mills Company is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar.
The appellant firm has companye up in appeal to this Court.
P. Goyal and Sobhagmal Jain for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court on December 5, 1967 in Special Appeal No.
Yogeshwar Prashad and Mrs. S. Bagga for Respondent No.
On November 12, 1954 i.e. within 14 days of the reservation of the sugarcane centres the respondent No.
In exercise of the powers under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, delegated to him by the Government of India under a Notification dated April 25, 1955 , the Cane Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh issued a Notification on June 1, 1955 whereunder the producers of sugar by vacuum pan process were allowed to make deductions as specified in the Schedule thereto from the minimum price of per maund of cane fixed for the season 1954 55 in respect of the unbonded sugarcane crushed on and after May 1, 1955.
1068 of 1967 and raises a short question whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of certain companycessions deductions in the minimum price numberified by the Cane Commissioner in his order issued on June 1, 1955 ?
2003 of 1963.
