Factory-related assets only: registered office premises stayed outside acquisition absent proof of use for undertaking purposes.

Under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971, only the factory and properties held or occupied for factory purposes vested in the acquiring corporation. The Kanpur premises were the company's registered office, and the record did not show that they had been approved or used as a sugar godown, director's residence, or guest house connected with the factory. The Act acquired the sugar undertaking and its factory-related assets, not the company as a broader juristic entity. The reference to the purchase-tax regime did not establish factory-use status, so the premises remained outside the acquired undertaking.

---

---

Issues: Whether House No. 54/14, Canal Range, Kanpur formed part of the acquired sugar undertaking and vested in the Corporation under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971, or remained the registered office and property of the company outside the acquisition.

Analysis: Section 2(h) of the Act defined the acquired undertaking to include the factory and properties held or occupied for the purposes of the factory, including guest houses, residences of directors and other premises connected with the factory. The decisive question was whether the Kanpur premises were in fact being used for factory purposes. The record showed that the premises were the registered office of the company, while there was no material to establish that they were approved or used as a godown for sugar storage, or as the residence of a director or a guest house. The Act acquired the sugar undertaking and its factory-related assets, not the company as a wider juristic entity. The reference to the purchase-tax regime also did not establish that the premises had been approved as a storage godown.

Conclusion: The Kanpur premises did not vest in the appellant and remained outside the acquired undertaking.

---