https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281949 A statutory minimum sugarcane price under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 did not bar a lawful agreement to pay a higher price, and such an agreed rate remained binding on the parties. Because the sugar factories' association and growers agreed to the higher rate within the reserved area framework, the appellant was liable for the differential amount. The agreed difference could also be recovered through the statutory revenue-recovery process as arrears of land revenue, and a separate civil suit was not required. The recovery certificate was therefore valid in law, and the appeals failed. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2019 10:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281949 A statutory minimum sugarcane price under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 did not bar a lawful agreement to pay a higher price, and such an agreed rate remained binding on the parties. Because the sugar factories' association and growers agreed to the higher rate within the reserved area framework, the appellant was liable for the differential amount. The agreed difference could also be recovered through the statutory revenue-recovery process as arrears of land revenue, and a separate civil suit was not required. The recovery certificate was therefore valid in law, and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281949