LexNEWABGANJ SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
803 A NEWABGANJ SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. September 16, 1975 B [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] "i Exce.13 amounts recovered by si1,ar manufacturers under the umbrella of c D E F • 1 • G H Court's stay order-Subsequently declared to be il!ega/JIY recovered-I~ejund to the constuners expediziously and inexpensively. The appellants challenged the validity of fixation of price of levy '.Sugar in the High Court. During the pendency of the petitions, the appellants obtained a stay order from the High Court for charging the price in excess of the price fixed by the State on furnishing Bank guarantees for the excess price. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the ·:ontrol of price and directed the appel- lants to restore the excess money recovered from the consumers to the consumers through the State Government. The appellants filed the present appeal by Special Leave against the said order of the High Court and contended tha'c since the Sugar Industry had lean year~ the excess amount should be allowed to be retained by the appellanf'3 or that the excess amount should be all~wed to be utilised for stabilising the sugarcane growers' econon;Uc position. In the alternative, it was prayed that the excess amount could remain with the appel· J&nts until a suitable s:heme f6r the return of the excess· amount to the con3umer was made. Dismissing the appeals, HELD: 1. The appellants had dubious busin~ss use of these crores of rupees f'dF nearly a year even after the High Court's final judgment. The money of the many little men got by the few millers by selling an essential commodity to the comm.unity at what is frankly black market price under the umbrella. of court order of stay shall get back to the scattered crowd of small consumers as early and as inexpensively as possible. A public injury perpetrated by calling in aid i;ourt process must waken judi~ial i;onscience to improvise an ad hoc procedure to restore through the court's authority wl1at has been nibbled from the numerous buyers. The handling of small cJaims is probably a most deplor- able _features of the administration of civil justice and yet small claims are in many respects more signi:fican~ than large oneS', involving large numbers and inter-class disputes. If the confidence of the community in the justice system, especially consumer protection. is to be created, radical reform of the processual law is needed now and here. The inherent power of the court has its roo~s in the necessity and its breadth is co-extensive with the necessity. The Court dirc:ted that the Bank guarantees furnished by the appellants should be encashed by the Registrar and kept in short-term, deposit. That he claims of the con .. sumers should be settled by the Registrar of the High Courf under the ord·~r of the High Court through an easy and cheap machinery. That wide publicity should be given about the method of returning and that small claim" might be acceptod by cost and money ~lso returned by post. [804 C-E. 806 A, D. 807"BDJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1186 to 1201 of 1975. Appea)s by Special Leave from the Judgment aud Orders dateld the 11th November, 1974, 6th December, 1974 aud 27th November, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 4139, 5354, 5352-5353, 5355-5357, 4065, 4912, 4326, 4212, 4218, 4545, 4328, 4543 and 4769 of 1972 respectively. 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 1 S.C.R. 0. S. Pathak (In CA 1186/75), S. Swarup, Shri Narain for the appellants (In CAs. Nos.1186, 1194-1195 and 1196-1197/75). S. V. Gupte, R. N. Bhalgetra and S. S. Kh'anduja for the app1:llants (In CA No. 1187/75). S. S .. Khanduja for the appellants (In CAs. Nos. 1188-1192 of 1975). V. J. Fr$cis of Ml s Ramamurthy & Co. for the appellants (In CA No. 1193/75). Yogeshwar Prasad and Miss Rani Arora for the ~ppellants (In CA No. 1198/75) and (1199/75). - N. · N. Goswamy and Arvind Minocha for the appellant (In CA No. 1201/75). Thi< Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. We should have made short shift of this batch A c of appeals on the brief but fatal ground that the appellants-all sugar millers who had over-priced this essential consumer article and had D failed in their challenge of the controlled price-had no moral nor legal claim to keep the huge sums which the High Court had right to directed them to disgorge. When
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.