9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Agreement for the final price of sugarcane. 2. Retrospective operation of price fixation. 3. Recovery of amounts as arrears of land revenue. 4. Liability to pay interest on delayed payment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Agreement for the Final Price of Sugarcane: The core issue was whether an agreement existed for the final price of sugarcane during the relevant period and if such an agreement was in accordance with the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. The court found that despite the Central Government fixing a minimum price of Rs. 8.60 per quintal, an agreement was reached on March 21, 1976, to set the final price at Rs. 12 per quintal at the factory and Rs. 11.50 per quintal at other supply centers. This agreement was facilitated by the Madhya Pradesh Government and included representatives from various sugar factories, except one firm which later consented telephonically. The court held that there was no statutory prohibition against agreeing to a higher price than the minimum set by the Central Government, and such agreements were valid under Rule 3(2) of the Order. 2. Retrospective Operation of Price Fixation: The respondents argued that the agreement for the increased price was retrospective and thus invalid. The court clarified that the sugarcane crushing year was defined under the Order, and the price fixed by the Central Government was treated as tentative, subject to final agreement between the parties. Therefore, the agreed price was not retrospective but was the final price for the sugarcane supplied during the relevant period. 3. Recovery of Amounts as Arrears of Land Revenue: The appellants sought to recover unpaid amounts as arrears of land revenue under Section 21 of the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1959. The High Court had previously ruled that without a separate written agreement, such recovery was not enforceable. However, the Supreme Court found that the agreement reached on March 21, 1976, constituted a valid contract, and the liability to pay the agreed price was enforceable. The court held that the demands issued against the respondents were in accordance with the Act, and the amounts could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 4. Liability to Pay Interest on Delayed Payment: The issue of interest on delayed payment was also contested. The High Court had ruled that no interest was chargeable as the amount was not paid per the price fixed under the Order. However, the Supreme Court found that under Rule 3(3A) of the Order and Section 20 of the Act, there was a provision for interest on delayed payments. The court held that the respondents were liable to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of delay, as the agreement for the higher price was valid and enforceable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the agreement for the final price of sugarcane was valid, the price fixation was not retrospective, the amounts could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and the respondents were liable to pay interest on delayed payments. The court directed the Government to disburse the amounts within three months and recover them from the assets of the respondents, considering that the mills had become sick and were taken over by the Government. No costs were imposed due to the takeover of the mills.
|
