Binding sugarcane agreement controls concession eligibility even when the offer was made after the prescribed period.

Sugarcane supplied under a binding agreement in the prescribed statutory form was treated as "bonded sugarcane" and therefore fell outside the concession available only for "unbonded sugarcane". The Supreme Court of India held that, because the term "bonded sugarcane" was undefined, it had to be given its ordinary meaning. Reading the relevant clauses together, the 14-day period for making an offer was not mandatory, as the Cane Commissioner could extend time; a belated offer could still be voluntarily accepted and, once embodied in the prescribed form, create a binding arrangement under the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether sugarcane supplied under an offer made beyond the prescribed period, but accepted by the factory and embodied in the prescribed form of agreement, was "bonded sugarcane" so as to exclude the factory from the deduction notified in the Cane Commissioner's order dated 1 June 1955.

Analysis: The expression "bonded sugarcane" was not defined in the statute or the Supply and Purchase Order, so the Court gave the words their ordinary meaning. On that basis, sugarcane supplied under a binding bond or agreement fell within the description "bonded sugarcane" and was outside the concession granted for "unbonded sugarcane". Reading clause 3(2) and clause 3(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 together, the Court held that the 14-day period in clause 3(2) for making an offer was not mandatory, since clause 3(4) empowered the Cane Commissioner to extend time. The obligation under clause 3(3) to accept within 14 days applied where a timely offer was made, but a belated offer could still be accepted voluntarily, and if accepted and reduced into the prescribed form, it created a binding agreement under the statutory scheme. The parties' conduct in invoking arbitration and appeal under the rules also showed that they treated the arrangement as one under the Act and the Order.

Conclusion: The additional supply was correctly treated as bonded sugarcane, and the factory was not entitled to the deduction notified on 1 June 1955.

Ratio Decidendi: Sugarcane supplied pursuant to a binding agreement in the prescribed form is bonded sugarcane for the purpose of a concession limited to unbonded sugarcane, even if the offer leading to the agreement was made after the period prescribed for making offers.

---