Statutory cane price recovery upheld despite BIFR proceedings; writ relief declined for disputed dues and parallel remedies.

Writ relief was found unavailable for disputed contractual recovery claims where the bank had an alternative statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the auction challenge was inconsistent and had become infructuous, and the sugar company had already pursued a civil suit on the same dues. The factory was held bound by the Control Order to pay admitted cane price dues within time, and BIFR proceedings under section 22 of SICA did not bar recovery of those statutory dues. The recovery mechanism under the Control Order was upheld, and the farmers' statutory entitlement to payment was protected, subject to excise dues being cleared before release of the balance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions filed by the bank and the sugar company were maintainable for reliefs relating to recovery, auction, and disbursal of sale proceeds; (ii) whether the factory could avoid recovery of admitted cane price dues on the ground of BIFR proceedings and whether the farmers were entitled to enforcement of the statutory price.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions filed by the bank and the sugar company were maintainable for reliefs relating to recovery, auction, and disbursal of sale proceeds.

Analysis: The bank's claim depended on proof of its contractual dues and the court held that such disputed factual claims could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The alternative prayer to restrain disbursal of sale proceeds was also rejected because the bank had to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The prayer to invalidate the auction was found inconsistent with the alternative relief sought and, in any event, the challenge had become infructuous after the auction. The sugar company's petition was rejected because it had already instituted a civil suit for the same dues and could not maintain parallel proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions of the bank and the sugar company were not maintainable and were dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the factory could avoid recovery of admitted cane price dues on the ground of BIFR proceedings and whether the farmers were entitled to enforcement of the statutory price.

Analysis: The Control Order imposed a statutory obligation on the factory to pay the price of sugarcane within the prescribed time, and the amount due was found to be admitted on the record. The contention that an enquiry was required was rejected because the dues were already determined and acknowledged. The objection based on section 22 of SICA was negatived because recovery of statutory dues under the special control order was not barred by BIFR proceedings. The court also held that the recovery mechanism under the Control Order could validly be implemented and that the farmers' statutory entitlement could not be defeated.

Conclusion: The farmers' writ petitions were allowed and recovery of the cane dues was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The common order left the bank and company without relief, sustained the recovery process against the factory, and protected the farmers' statutory right to payment, with excise dues to be cleared before the balance was released to the farmers.

---