TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules non-member cane growers entitled to market price, questions legality of High Court's decision.</h1> <h3>Maharashtra Rajya Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra</h3> The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that non-member cane growers supplying cane to sugar factories were entitled to market price instead of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of non-member cane growers to market price.2. Legality of market price fixation by the High Court.3. Validity of the State Order without provisions for non-member cane growers.4. Mechanism of price fixation for sugarcane.5. Impact of zoning and reservation on price fixation.6. Compulsory sale under Section 3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act.7. Disparity in price fixation and its impact on non-members.8. Amendments and recommendations for future price fixation.Summary:1. Entitlement of Non-Member Cane Growers to Market Price: The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court directed that cane growers who were not members of any Co-operative Society but were required to supply their cane under reservation order or Control Orders to sugar factories were entitled to market price instead of the government-fixed price. This was based on the reasoning that non-members were not bound by the price fixed under the Cooperative Sugar Act's bye-laws and there was no machinery in the Zoning Order to hear non-members before price fixation.2. Legality of Market Price Fixation by the High Court: The High Court fixed the market price for 1993-94 at Rs. 740/- as against Rs. 340/- to Rs. 400/- fixed by the Government. The Supreme Court questioned the sustainability of this conclusion, emphasizing that the price fixation mechanism should be fair and just, and should not differentiate between members and non-members.3. Validity of the State Order Without Provisions for Non-Member Cane Growers: The Supreme Court noted that the absence of machinery to hear non-members before price fixation did not invalidate the State Order. The price fixation mechanism was considered broad-based and representative, ensuring fair pricing for all cane growers.4. Mechanism of Price Fixation for Sugarcane: The process involves three stages: fixation of minimum ex-factory price by the Central Government, State Advised Price by the State Government, and the final price paid at the end of the season. The Bhargava Commission's recommendations on price fixation and profit-sharing were followed, ensuring a fair return to cane growers.5. Impact of Zoning and Reservation on Price Fixation: Zoning ensures equitable distribution of sugarcane to factories, preventing cutthroat competition and ensuring fair prices. The Supreme Court upheld the zoning system, emphasizing that it benefits both the factories and the cane growers.6. Compulsory Sale Under Section 3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act: The Supreme Court held that the supply of cane under the Zoning Order was not a compulsory sale under Section 3(2)(f) of the Act, as the order did not direct cane growers to sell their cane to the Government or any specified person, but merely restricted the supply to ensure adequate production of sugar.7. Disparity in Price Fixation and Its Impact on Non-Members: The Supreme Court acknowledged the wide disparities in prices paid by different factories and directed the State Government to rationalize the price fixation mechanism. The Court emphasized that non-members should not be prejudiced by the price fixation process.8. Amendments and Recommendations for Future Price Fixation: The Supreme Court directed the State Government to amend the Zoning Order to protect cane growers and appointed an Expert Committee to study and examine the price structure. The Court also upheld the interim order directing factories to pay Rs. 600/- to cane growers, with no recovery from non-members.Conclusion:The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with directions to amend the Zoning Order, appoint an Expert Committee for price fixation, and uphold the interim order of Rs. 600/- payment to cane growers, ensuring fair and just pricing for all cane growers, both members and non-members.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
