JANKI SUGAR MILLS & CO. versus COMMISSIONER OF MEERUT DIVISION, MEERUT

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 14-12-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
n 
778 
JANKI SUGAR MILLS & CO. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF MEERUT DIVISION, MEERUT 
December 14, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.) 
"Bonded Cane", meaning of,-True effect of the provisions of 1ub·clauses 
(2) and (3) of cl. 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, 
i.Ysued under s. 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) 
Act, 1953. 
The Government of India notified its decision that certain deductions in 
the minimum cttne price, on the basis of recovery of sugar from sugarcane 
will be allowed to sugarcane factories in U.P. on the cane supplied to them 
on and after May 1, 1955 but that the deductions will be allowed enly on 
"unbonded cane" crushed by each factory and not on "bonded cane", the 
latter of which shall have to be purchased by ebch factory at the minimum 
cane price already fixed for the season. In exercise of the powers delegated 
to him under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Cane 
Com-
missioner U.P. issued a Notification on June, 1, 
1955, 
whereunder 
"the 
producers of sugar by vacµum pan process were allowed to make deductions 
as specified in the Schedule thereto from the minimum price of per mnund of 
cane fixed for the season 1954-55 in respect of 
the 
unbonded 
sugarcane 
crushed on and after May I, 1955. 
The appellant firm taking advantage of this Notification granting conces-
Mon in the minimum price, made payment to Laskar Co-operative Cane 
Development Union Ltd; after making deductions in respect of 2 lac n1aunds 
of sugarcane supplied to it, under an agreement entered into pursuant to the 
offer made to it on March 22, 1955. 
However, on December 21, 1955 the 
Cane Commissioner issued a Recovery Certificate under Sections 17 and 18 
of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) 
Act, 
1953 
against 
the appellant firm for a sum of Rs. 53,879.JO being the amount deducted by 
the appellant firm while making payments to Laskar Co-operative 
Union. 
On a challenge to legality of the Recovery Certificate, the dispute was referred 
to the sole arbitrator, the District Cane Officer under Rule 108 of the U.P. 
Sugrucane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. 
Tue arbitrator 
found that the supply of sugarcane was "bonded cane" and therefore gave 
an award that the appellant was not entitled to the concession and was liable 
to pay the minimum price therefor. 
An appeal to the Divisional Con1missioner having been 
dismissed, 
the 
appellant-firm filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court which also 
was rejected. 
A further special appeal also proving unsuccessful the appellant-
firm appealed to the Supreme Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : 1. Neither the expression "bonded sugarcane" 
nor 
"unbonded 
sugar cane" has been defined either in the Statute or in the U.P. Sugarcane 
Supply and Purchase Order, 1954. 
Having regard to the ordinary dictionary 
" ' 
' 
• 
JANK! SUGAR MILLS V. COMMISSIONER 
779 
meaning of the said expressions, the expression "bonded sugarctl.11e" must mean 
A 
Sugar Cane secured by a bond or deed. [783 G-H, 784 AJ. 
2. Under the Notification of the Cane Commissioner dated June 1, 1955 
certain deductions from the n1inimum price per maund of cane fixed for the 
season 1954-55 had been notified in respect of the 
"unbonded sugarcane" 
crushed on or after May 1, 1955. In other words, the concession is 
granted 
in respect of the supply of 'unbo'fided 
sugarcane 
in 
contradistinction 
with 
supply of 'bonded sugarcane. There is nothing in the Notification to suggest 
that any particular bond or a bond in accordance with the provisions of the 
U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order 1954 was intended and therefore 
supply of 'bonded sugarclJ•nc' \Vould mean supply of sugarcane which has been 
secured by a bond or an agreement and such supply will not be entitled to 
the concession. 
On a plain reading of the Notification in question, therefore, 
it will appear clear that since the supply of two lac maunds 
of 
sugarcane 
made by respondent no. 4 to the appellta·nt-firm had been secured 
by 
the 
agreement that was entered into between the parties on May 4, 1955 the said 
supply V.'ill have to be regarded as supply of "bonded sugarcane" and as 
such 
the appellant-firm was not entitled to the concession in the minimum price 
payable in respect thereof to respondent no. 4, Laskar 
Co-operative 
Cane 
Developmen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.