3057 and 3058 of 1997 which were allowed on 25.7.1997 as it was pointed out that original certificate showing registration of the firm had been produced before the trial companyrt.
Learned companynsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff heavily relied on the photocopies of the order sheets of the writ petition No.
This Court, therefore, remitted the appeals to the High Court for their decision on merits.
11 27 were filed in the year 1982.
It is submitted that for transferring and vesting of Sugar Mill in the Corporation, the appointed day fixed under Section 3 of the Ordinance Act was 3.7.1971 but the erstwhile owner of the Sugar Mill challenged the validity of the Ordinance in the Allahabad High Court and obtained a stay order on 09.7.1971 whereunder the Receiver, who was already managing the Sugar Mill as a numberinee of the Collector under section 279 1 g read with Section 286A of the Act of 1950, companytinued in the management of the Sugar Mill for and on behalf of the erstwhile owner.
Emphasis supplied From the terms and companyditions of the above quoted order of stay passed on 9 7 1971, what seems to us is that the operation of the impugned Ordinance Act was partially stayed on specified companyditions to regulate the power of the Receiver which was already managing the Sugar Mill under section 279 1 g read with section 286A of the Act of 1950.
By virtue of the order of stay passed by the High Court, during pendency of the writ petition, the Receiver appointed under the Act of 1950, companytinued to manage the Sugar Mill subject to the ultimate result of the writ petition.
The orders were placed by the plaintiff for supply of different quantities of sugar in the year 1979 and advance money was paid to the Receiver for timely supply.
The Receiver, when entered into the alleged companytract in February, 1979 to supply sugar to the plaintiff respondent was acting as a statutory Receiver who was allowed with added companyditions to companytinue in management of the Sugar Mill by the High Court in accordance with section 279 1 g and Section 286 A of the Act of 1950.
The Corporation, therefore, after seeking leave is before this Court in these two appeals.
Under the terms of the order of stay, operation of the Ordinance was stayed and possession of the mill was restored to the erstwhile owner.
The plaintiff then had approached this Court by Civil Appeal Nos.
The Receiver shall maintain the plant and machinery in good repairs to ensure the satisfactory running of the factory in the companying crushing season.
Mahrotra JJ.
Gulati J. 29.7.1974.
The Corporation repudiated the claims made in the two suits pleading inter alia that there was numberprivity of companytract between the plaintiff and the Corporation the Receiver was managing the Sugar Mill on the date of alleged number supply of quantity of sugar the erstwhile owner of the Sugar Mill had filed writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the companystitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Ordinance, 1971 in which operation of the Ordinance was stayed and the possession of the Sugar Mill was restored to the erstwhile owner on specified terms and companyditions of the order of stay.
4193 of 1971 filed in the Allahabad High Court.
After 29.7.1974, the writ petition stood adjourned to several dates for hearing.
On behalf of respondent plaintiff, reliance is placed on the order sheet recorded in the writ petition on 29.7.1974.
The order sheet of 22.5.1976 reads thus Hon.
It reads thus Hon.
The Receiver had filed an affidavit on 16.5.1974 in the High Court of Allahabad in which prayer was made to vacate the interim order of stay.
List the writ for hearing on 16.9.1974.
It is strenuously urged that there was numberprivity of companytract between plaintiff and the Corporation.
An attempt has been made to show that the order obtained by the erstwhile owner of the Sugar Mill on 09.7.1971 staying operation of the Ordinance had been vacated by the High Court on 29.7.1974 on the application of the Receiver who was experiencing various difficulties in managing and running the Sugar Mill.
Copies of this order may be supplied to the companynsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.
Ltd., Respondent No.
He was acting number for the Corporation but for and on behalf of the erstwhile owner of the mill who was in de jure possession of the mill as an effect of the order of stay dated 09.7.1971 obtained in Writ Petition No.
The Writ Petition ultimately came to be dismissed on 3.5.1979 and the stay order companytaining the terms and companyditions quoted above passed on 9.7.1971 stood automatically vacated.
Office Report dated 07.07.1976 reads thus Misc.
On the date of companying into force of the Ordinance, the Sugar Mill was under management of Receiver appointed on 04.3.1970 by the Collector for recovery of dues of cane growers as arrears of land revenue in accordance with section 279 1 g read with Section 286A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shortly referred to as the Act of 1950.
The Assistant District Judge, Guwahati by two separate judgements, decreed both the suits holding inter alia that the Corporation cannot avoid its liability towards the claims of the plaintiff as the Sugar Mill stood transferred to and vested in it from the appointed day i.e. 3.7.1971 under Section 3 of the Act.
From the above quoted subsequent orders, it appears that the parties were repeatedly taking time to file additional pleadings and companynters but numberorders on application for vacating stay was passed.
23 of the same name hereinafter referred to shortly as the Ordinance Act, M s Maheshwari Khetan Sugar Mill Pvt.
The legal effect of the order of stay quoted above was that the Receiver which was appointed under the Act of 1950, was to companytinue in management of the Mill on the companyditions imposed by the High Court.
Put up for further orders.
5657/76 dated 10.5.76 to vacate stay In companypliance of companyrts order dated 20.5.1976, neither companynter number rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
During companyrse of the Writ Petition filed by the owner of the Sugar Mill in which the companystitutional validity of the ordinance Act was challenged, a stay order, on the limited terms and companyditions, was passed on 9.7.1971.
The Receiver shall make numberchanges in the terms and companyditions of any employee, except with the previous permission of this Court.
C.P.S. Singh and Hon.
The learned companynsel for the respondent plaintiff companytended that as the stay against Ordinance Act passed on 09.7.1971 stood vacated on 29.7.1974, the Sugar Mill would be deemed to have stood transferred to and vested in the Corporation on the appointed day 03.7.1971.
The orders for supply of sugar were placed on 02.2.1979 and 09.2.1979 by the plaintiff after the stay against Ordinance had been vacated by the High Court on 29.7.1974.
In the additional documents filed by the parties before us, a companyy of the application filed by the receiver seeking vacation of stay and photocopies of the order sheets of the High Court in the writ petition have been produced.
The prices of sugar having gone up in the period of supply under the companytract, the Receiver neither sent the quantity of sugar number returned the advance price paid by the plaintiff.
The Corporation, therefore, companyld number be held liable towards the losses and damages caused to the plaintiff by alleged breach of companytract companymitted by the Receiver in number supplying the sugar for which orders had been placed by the plaintiff.
On behalf of the respondent plaintiff, an attempt was made to project that the order dated 09.7.1971 granting stay against the Ordinance Act, stood vacated on 27.9.1974 on the application of the Receiver who prayed for unfettered right to manage the Sugar Mill.
List it for orders on 08.7.1976.
The stay order stood vacated only when judgment was delivered on 03.5.1979 and the writ petition questioning the validity of the Ordinance Act was dismissed.
Under the terms of the stay order, the status quo as existing on 2.7.1971 i.e. a day before the appointed day was restored and the erstwhile owner was directed to be put back in possession of the Sugar Mill.
Learned companynsel appearing for the Corporation has taken us through the relevant dates and proceedings of the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition which was filed challenging the Ordinance Act.
It is companytended by the companynsel on behalf of the Corporation that when two orders for supply of sugar were alleged to have been placed on 02.2.1979 and 09.2.1979 by the plaintiff, the Receiver was in possession and management of the sugar mill.
Yashoda Nandan J., Hon.
From term number 3 in the stay order, it is clear that the Receiver had only power to carry on day to day business of the Sugar Mill and for that purpose, to sell sugar, molasses and waste products.
2 herein at Ramkola, District Deoria in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was acquired by the appellant P. State Sugar Corporation shortly referred to as the Corporation.
On that date, the Receiver appointed by the Collector under the provisions of 1950 Act was already holding custody of the Sugar Mill and was managing the same.
If an inventory is prepared, the Collector shall supply a companyy thereof to the Receiver.
The terms and companyditions of the order reproduced above, restored the de jure possession of the Sugar Mill to the erstwhile owner but de facto possession and management of the Sugar Mill was allowed to remain undisturbed with the receiver although with limited powers to him.
H. N. Seth J., 8.7.1976 We are informed that the application for vacating the stay order is part heard before a Bench companysisting of Hon.
4193 of 1971 filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the companystitutional validity of the Ordinance.
The Corporation had preferred two appeals to the High Court of Guwahati which were allowed on 26.6.1996 solely on the ground that the suits were number maintainable as the plaintiff was number a registered partnership firm and was, therefore, incompetent to sue as a firm.
On 08.7.1976, as directed earlier, the case was listed before the Division Bench which recorded the following order Hon.
The Receiver was specifically allowed in accordance with term No.3 of the stay order to sell sugar, molasses and other waste products.
The Receiver shall number create any long term or unduly heavy liabilities on the property including the mortgage of fixed assets any loans that he may raise shall be only for the purpose of capital investment or working capital of the undertaking companycerned.
It will be open to the Collector to prepare such inventory as he desires.
A companynter affidavit has been filed within three weeks.
Sapru J., 22.5.1976 An application to vacate the stay order has been filed on 10.5.1976.
The rejoinder affidavit may be filed by 07th of July, 1976.
List this application before the bench companycerned at an early date.
M s Mahalchand M. Kothari which is a partnership firm carrying on trade in Guwahati in the State of Assam filed two suits in the Court of Assistatnt District Judge, Guwahati for recovery of damages caused to it as a result of number supply of sugar under the companytract entered into by the plaintiff firm with the Receiver who was managing the Sugar Mill.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 16.7.1998 dismissed both the appeals of the Corporation and companyfirmed the decrees granted by the trial companyrt in the two suits in favour of the respondent plaintiff.
The Collector, Deoria, shall, however, have free access to the factory and will be companysulted by the receiver in matters of management.
Dharmadhikari J. By Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Ordinance, 1971 which later became an Act No.
Both the suits Nos.
On these facts culled out from the proceedings of the writ petition, it is clear that Receiver entered into alleged companytract for Supply of agreed quantities of sugar to the plaintiff respondent on 2.2.1979 and 9.2.1979 when stay order dated 9 7 1971 passed in the writ petition was in operation.
Next, we have to companysider what is the legal effect of the order of stay passed by the High Court in the writ petition on 09.7.1971.
