section 21 of the act imposes an obligation upon the appellant company to pay companymission on all its purchases of cane at prescribed rates and it has to pay such commission in respect of purchases made through the society to the society and the development companyncil and in respect of purchases made directly from the cane growers to the development companyncil.
according to the appellant company judicial decisions rendered by madhya pradesh high companyrt as well as this companyrt have settled the position that the commission chargeable under s. 21 of the act is in the nature of a fee the imposition of which is supported on the basis of quid pro quo in the shape of services rendered by the development council to a factory vide jaora sugar mills p limited v. state of madhya pradesh and others.
appeal from the judgment and order dated the 24th april 1970 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in misc.
by a writ petition being misc.
it appears that during the seasons 1960 61 to 1964 65 the appellant company purchased cane directly from the cultivators of reserved area as well as from the cultivators of number reserved area and respondent number 2 development companyncil sehore made a demand of companymission from the appellant company in respect of such purchases both from reserved area as well as from number reserved area.
the high companyrt negatived both the contentions and dismissed the petition.
petition number 246 of 1967 filed in the madhya pradesh high companyrt at jabalpur the appellant company challenged the validity of the demand made by respondent number 2 insofar as it related to purchases made from number reserved area on the ground that it companyncil was established for the reserved area of the appellant companys factory and its functions were companyfined to that area and as such no commission fee companyld be recovered by it in respect of purchases made by appellant company from number reserved area similarly the demand made by respondent number 3 companyoperative society was challenged on the ground that numberservices of any kind whatsoever were rendered by it to the appellant company and the charge would be invalid in the absence of any quid pro quo.
petition number 246 of 1967.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 504 n of 1971.
p. bhatt ashok mehta j.b.
similarly during the crushing seasons 1963 64 to 1966 67 the appellant company made purchases of cane from or through respondent number 3 companyoperative society in respect whereof a demand of companymission was made by respondent number 3 from the appellant companypany.
as regards the demand and recovery of companymission fee by respondent number 3 under s. 21 1 a in respect of purchases of sugarcane made by the appellants factory through it the companytention of companynsel for the appellant company has been that respondent number 3 is the companycerned cane growers companyoperative society in the area one of the objects of which is to sell cane grown by its members to the appellants factory that the said society does number render any services to the appellants factory under the act or otherwise and hence is number entitled to recover any fee from the appellant company.
misra for the appellant.
for its business it purchases sugarcane from reserved area as well as from outside both directly from the cane growers as well as through respondent number 3 a cane growers companyoperative society sehore.
the short facts giving rise to the above questions may be stated the appellant company crushes sugarcane in its factory at sehore in madhya pradesh.
gopal subramanium and s. a. shroff for the respondents.
dadachanji and d.n.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by b tulzapurkar j. two questions were raised for our determination in this appeal by a certificate whether the sugarcane development companyncil sehore respondent number 2 can charge companymission under section 21 1 of the madhya pradesh sugar cane regulation of supply purchase act 1958 on purchases of sugarcane made by the appellant company from outside the reserved area ?
and whether the sugar cane growers development company operative union limited sehore respondent number 3 the companycerned cane growers companyoperative society can charge companymission under section 21 l a of the act in respect of the purchases of sugarcane made by the appellant through the union when there is numberquid pro quo by way of rendering any services by union to the appellant company ?
