text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
(2)In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for; x x x x (u)the reference to the Cane Commissioner of disputes relating to the supply of cane for decision or if he so directs to arbitration, the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators, the procedure to... |
Purchase of cane growing in a reserved area. (1) The occupier or manager of a factory shall estimate or cause to be estimated by 30th September, the quantity of sugarcane with each grower enrolled in the Growers ' Register and shall submit the estimates to the Collector. STA |
The Collector may, after such enquiries as he considers necessary, modify the estimates and 769 cause them to be published in such manner as he may direct, In framing these estimates, sugarcane grown in more than one third of the area of land suitable for sugarcane cultivation in the holding of each grower may be exclu... |
(2)A cane grower or a cane grower 's co operative society in a reserved area may offer in form 10, Appendix III, by the 15th October each year to supply during the crushing season to the occupier or manager of the factory for which the area has been reserved, cane not exceeding, in the case of a cane grower, the quanti... |
(3)The occupier or manager of the factory for which the area is reserved shall enter into an agreement with the cane grower or the cane growers ' co operative society as the case may be, in forms 15 and 18 respectively or in any other form approved by the Cane Commissioner within a month of the offer mentioned in sub. ... |
rule (2). STA |
(4)The occupier or manager of a factory shall spread the purchase made in the reserved area in an equitable manner and shall in the case of cane grower of the reserved area make purchase of cane only after issuing requisition slips. STA |
In order to comply with this rule the occupier or manager shall 'cause identification cards to be distributed to all cane growers of the reserved area to whom requisition slips have been issued and shall maintain a record of the same. STA |
He will also keep a record of the requisition slips issued and distributed to the growers and returned by them. STA |
770 (5)Cane grown in a reserved area shall not except with the permission of the Cane Commissioner be purchased by any person with out the previous issue at convenient centres in the reserved area of requisition slips and identification cards to the growers, by the occupier or manager of the factory for which the area ... |
(6)Requisition slips and identification cards to members of a "can growers ' co operative society shall not be issued except by such society. STA |
(7)In case of a dispute whether a particular system adopted for the purchase of cane grown in the reserved area is equitable or not, the dispute may be 'referred to the Cane Commissioner whose decision shall be final "23. STA |
Arbitration (1) Any dispute touching an agreement referred to in section 18 (2) or section 19 (2) of the Act shall be referred to the Cane Commissioner for decision, or if he so directs to arbitration. STA |
No suit shall lie in a civil or revenue court in respect of any such dispute. STA |
(2)If the Cane Commissioner directs the reference of a suit to arbitration, it shall be referred to a sole arbitrator acceptable to the parties concerned. STA |
In case no sole arbitrator is acceptable to both parties, the dispute in question shall be referred to a Board of Arbitration, consisting of one representative of each party and an umpire acceptable to both representatives. STA |
If the representatives or the parties are unable to elect such an umpire within a fortnight, the Cane Commissioner shall either himself act as umpire or nominate one. STA |
The umpire shall be the President of the Board of 771 Arbitration and shall have a vote in case of disagreement between the representatives. STA |
(3)The sole arbitrator or the President of the Board, of Arbitration shall have the full power of a court in respect of summoning the parties, witnessess and records. STA |
(4) The decision of the sole arbitrator or Board of Arbitration shall be final and binding on both parties and shall not be called in question in any civil or revenue court. STA |
(5) The sole arbitrator or the Board of Arbitration shall give an award within the time fixed by the Cane, Commissioner, failing which the Cane Commissioner may decide the dispute himself or appoint another arbitrator or arbitrators for the purpose. STA |
(6)Any party considering himself aggrieved by an award may appeal to the Commissioner of the Division in which the factory is situated within one month of the date of the communication of the award and the Commi ssioner shall pass such order as he deems fit. STA |
(7)The Commissioner 's order in appeal shall be final. STA |
(8)On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the decision or award, the decision of the Cane Commissioner, or the award of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or the Commissioner 's order in a peal against an award, shall be enforced by the Court as if such decision, award, or order in... |
" " 25.Penalties (1) Any person contravening any of the provisions of these rules for which no 772 penalty has been provided in the Act or not obeying a lawful order or direction conveyed to him in writing which the Cane Commissioner or a Collector or an Inspector is authorised to pass or issue shall be punishable with... |
In these two years, the Cane Marketing Society offered sugar cane by Form 10. Ratio |
According to the appellant, the Society should have offered 85% of its net estimated crop but it made an offer in both the years which was less than 85% and actually supplied a quantity which was still less. Ratio |
The relevant figures or the two years, according to the appellant, were as follows: 1949 50 1950 51 (In Lacs of Maunds) Net estimated Crop 45.82 55.20 Less 15% 6.82 8.28 85% which should have been offered 39.00 46.92 Opposite party No 2 offered to sell finally 32.00 32.00 Shortage in offer 7.00 14.92 Actually supplied ... |
This was preceded by a long correspondence 773 which began in June 1950. FAC |
Of this correspondence a few of the letters have been printed in the record of the case. FAC |
The first letter is by the appellant to the Cane Marketing Society Ltd., Bijnor, in which a claim for Rs. 1,02,116 13 0, as compensation on account of short supplies in the season 1949 50 was made. FAC |
The next letter in August, 1950, showed that the Society was claiming a sum of Rs. 1,64,094 4 6 as commission for the years 1948 49 and 1949 50 and that the appellant was setting up a counterclaim for Rs. 1,04,890 2 9 as compensation for short supply. FAC |
On November 4,1950, the appellant wrote a final letter giving the accounts and sending a cheque for Rs. 22628 13 0 in full satisfaction of the claim. FAC |
This cheque was accepted by the Society but under protest. FAC |
The real dispute was about the compensation for short supplies which the Society did not admit. FAC |
According to the Society they had a claim for Rs. 2,63,624 2 6 and they also moved the Cane Commissioner under Rule 23 (1) of the U. P. Sugar Control Act and Rules, 1938, for arbitration. FAC |
The Cane Commissioner, who had not acted on the letter of the appellant, then passed an order on July 26, 1951, calling upon the parties to be present before him on August 18, 1951, for the decision of the dispute. FAC |
On September 3, 1951, the appellant filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings pending before the Cane Commissioner, for a Writ of Prohibition for restraining the Cane Commissioner from continuing the proceedings and for a writ of quo warranto for a declarat... |
In support of the petition the appellant contended that there could be no arbitration in this dispute because the agreement was not a proper agreement as the Society had omitted to complete the prescribed form XII by leaving the Schedule, the area of cultivation and the estimated yield, blank and as the agreements were... |
In the alternative, it was contended that Rule 23 offended against article 14 of the Constitution because it provided two different methods of decision of the disputes one by the Cane Commissioner and the other by arbitration leaving it to the arbitrary will of the Cane Commissioner to choose which it should be in a pa... |
It was further contended that the provision in sub Rule (6) of Rule 23, which provided for an appeal went beyond the rule making power of the Provincial Government as no such power was conferred on it by section 30 of the Act and sub Rule (6) being unseverable, the whole of Rule 23 must fail and that, there could be no... |
The petition was heard by Chaturvedi, J., and was dismissed. FAC |
A special appeal under the Letters Patent was heard by Mootham, C. J., and C. B. Agarwala, J. FAC |
Both of them concurred in dismissing the appeal but there was a difference as to sub Rule (6) between the learned judges. FAC |
According to the learned Chief justice, in making sub Rule (6) of Rule 23 the Provincial Government had exceeded its power and the Rule was invalid but the sub Rule was severable and the rest of the Rule was validly framed. RLC |
According to Agarwala, J,, the sub Rule was properly framed and there was a right of appeal both against the order of the Cane Commissioner as well as the award of the arbitra tors to the Commissioner of the Division. RLC |
Both the learned judge held that the provisions of Rule 23 were not discriminatory and thus not void under article 14. RLC |
In this appeal the same points, which were urged before the High Court, have been urged before us. Ratio |
The scheme of the Act and the Rules analysed above shows that the purchase of suger cane was 775 regulated. Ratio |
There were reserved areas, assigned areas and other areas. Ratio |
Supplies from a reserved area were meant for a factory for which the area was reserved and forms were prescribed for offer, agreements etc.so that the scheme might not be defeated by parties contracting out of the scheme. Ratio |
We are not concerned with the merits of the rival contentions about short supply or unpaid commission. Ratio |
Those are matters for adjudication elsewhere. Ratio |
We are only con cerned with the. legality of the proceedings before the Cane Commissioner. Ratio |
This dispute has been referred to him under Rule 23 not only by the Society but earlier also by the appellant. Ratio |
The appellant now says that he had made a mistake arid seeks to avoid a decision by the Cane Commissioner or by arbitrator and has set up two contentions. ARG |
The first is that by reason of three defects in the agreement of 1949 50 season and two in the agreement of 1950 51 season there is no binding contract as is contemplated by section 18(2) and the agreement not having come into force the Commissioner has no power to act under Rule 23. ARG |
The defects are : (a) Absence of signature for the mills in both agreements, (b) Schedule left blank in both agreements, (c) Two blanks left in the agreement for 1949 50 season where an area and a quantity had to be mentioned. Ratio |
The second contention is that Rule 23 enjoining arbitration is void under articles 13 and 14 of 'the Constitution as, on its face it allows discrimination and sub Rule (6) of Rule 23 making provision for an appeal is beyond the rule making power conferred by section 30 of the Act and that sub Rule being unseverable Rul... |
We shall deal with the first contention separately and the other two points in the second contention together. Ratio |
776 The first question thus to consider is whether there is a binding contract between the parties or not. Ratio |
Clause No. 10 of the agreement which is in the prescribed form, says that "all disputes touching the agreement shall be decided by arbitration as provided for in the rules and no suit shall lie in a civil or revenue court in respect of any such dispute". Ratio |
The exclusion of the jurisdiction of 'courts is also provided in Rule 23(1). Ratio |
If the agreement were binding the matter would have to be referred to arbitration as laid down in Rule 23. Ratio |
The agreement was challenged in the petition under Article 226 on four grounds. Ratio |
Three of them deal with the facts in dispute with which we are not concerned. Ratio |
The last was that "no agreement was entered into at all between the parties as contemplated under section 18(2) of the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act and in the form No. 12 as prescribed under the Rules made thereunder." Ratio |
The defects that are pointed out now, it is said, make out that there was no agreement at all. Ratio |
To begin with the agreement was accepted on both sides and was acted upon. Ratio |
The appellant himself moved the Cane Commissioner for the enforcement of the agreement on October 31, 1950. Ratio |
He now says that this was under the erroneous belief that even without a written agreement Rule 23 app lied. Ratio |
Even in the proceedings before the Cane Commissioner the appellant caused an appearance to be made and asked for time. Ratio |
No objection that there was no valid agreement, was taken. Ratio |
In his letters to the Society the appellant relied upon the agreements and calculated his compensation and the commission of the Society on its basis. Ratio |
The appellant sent requisitions for supplies for sugar cane in accordance with Rule 15(5) and (6) and the agreement. Ratio |
He accepted bills and paid for them. Ratio |
The appellant had the signed form 10 and also form 12 with him. Ratio |
He could have got the blanks filled in and also signed the agreement but evaded doing this. Ratio |
By his conduct 777 the appellant appears prima facie to have accepted the agreement though now he is relying on his own default and petty omissions in the form. Ratio |
Now it must be remembered that this form was prescribed so that the scheme of the Act and Rules should work smoothly, and the purchase and sale of sugar cane should follow a particular pattern. Ratio |
The failure to enter into an agreement in the prescribed form was made an offence to compel the factories to keep to the scheme. Ratio |
Here the form in fact has been used. Ratio |
All the terms are included and none has been altered or new terms added. Ratio |
The agreement has also been acted upon. Ratio |
The question is whether the want of signature of the complaining party and the existence of the blanks render the contract void and non existing. Ratio |
There is no doubt that in the agreement for the season 1949 50 the area of the crop in one place and the approximate yield from that area in another have not been filled in the blank space provided for that purpose. Ratio |
The form in 1950 51 has no such blanks. Ratio |
The agreement was preceded by from No. 10 which showed these particulars. Ratio |
That form was with the appellant and it supplied these two details, namely, the area under cultivation and the estimated yield. 'Indeed, the two forms between them contained all the particulars which are required to be entered in the body of the agreement. Ratio |
As regards the schedule to the agreement the headings read as follows: Village Area under sugar Approximate Remarks cane Deal: Ra yield in Mds.toon: Plant If the appellant required this information it could have been furnished. Ratio |
The Schedule merely gives details village by village of the area under cultivation mentioned in form No. 10 and the body of the agreement and also shows the quality grown 778 in each village. Ratio |
This is obviously to facilitate re quisitions being sent and the appellant if he has any complaint on this score can raise it in the proceedings. Ratio |
The banks in the body of the agreement for 1949 50 thus are insignificant. Ratio |
Those details were already mentioned in form 10. Ratio |
They do not bear upon the terms which are quite unaffected by the omissions. Ratio |
The form for 1949 50 season was therefore not invalid because of the omissions in the body of the agreement. Ratio |
The schedule was intended to record the details of the crop grown but those details were not an integral part of the agreement or its terms. Ratio |
The agreements for 1949 50 and 1950 51 season were therefore not invalid for this reason also. Ratio |
This leaves over the absence of the signature of the party who had the custody of the document and who is now complaining of its absence. Ratio |
It is somewhat odd that he should complain of the lack of his own signature because it is tantamount to his making a virtue of his own lapse. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.