BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS

BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS

The levy of commission (fee) under Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1958 on all purchases of sugarcane by a factory, whether from reserved or non-reserved areas or through a co-operative society, is valid as there is quid pro quo in the form of services rendered by the Cane Development Council and the Society towards better cane production, supply, and facilitation, with such functions not restricted to the reserved area alone; accordingly, the demands for commission were proper and justified.

Parties
Appellant: Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.; Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment After Dismissal of Writ Petition Under Article 226 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Levy of Commission (fee), Quid Pro Quo in Statutory Fees, Sugarcane Regulation, Scope of Authority of Development Councils, Services Rendered by Co Operative Societies
Administrative Law Taxation Law Co Operative Law Agricultural Regulation Levy of Commission (fee) Quid Pro Quo in Statutory Fees Sugarcane Regulation Scope of Authority of Development Councils +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Judgment After Dismissal of Writ Petition Under Article 226 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cane Development Council can levy commission under Section 21(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1958 on purchases of sugarcane made by the appellant from outside the 'reserved area'.
  2. 2 Whether the Cane-growers' Cooperative Society can charge commission under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on sugarcane purchases made by the appellant through the Society in the absence of quid pro quo by way of rendering services.

Ratio Decidendi

The levy of commission (fee) under Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1958 on all purchases of sugarcane by a factory, whether from reserved or non-reserved areas or through a co-operative society, is valid as there is quid pro quo in the form of services rendered by the Cane Development Council and the Society towards better cane production, supply, and facilitation, with such functions not restricted to the reserved area alone; accordingly, the demands for commission were proper and justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs; both questions are answered against the appellant.