TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (12) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order is passed. 2. The factory filed W.P. No. 44063 of 2001 praying to quash the order at annexure L, dated 26-9-2001, passed by the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar (hereinafter referred to as "the Cane Director") and the notice at annexure M, dated 4-10-2001, issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the factory to pay Rs. 4,23,75,000 due to the cane growers (hereinafter referred to as "farmers") towards the cane supplied with interest at 15 per cent per annum within seven days. 3. The Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. ('the company') has filed W.P. No. 45890 of 2001 seeking to quash the auction notice at annexure G dated 27-11-2001, issued by the Tahsildar for auctioning the properties of the petitioner and to direct the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat a sum of Rs. 1.37 crores is due for the year 1999-2000, Rs. 2.87 crores for the year 2000-01 and Rs. 1 crore for the year 1993-94 towards the sugarcane supplied by the farmers to the factory in terms of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 ("the Control Order"). 6. The petitioners claim first priority over others for recovering the dues from the factory. Since the sale of sugar produced by the factory is subject to payment of excise dues under rule 4(1) of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, the Central Government standing counsel also claims priority of its dues. Since it is a statutory due, appropriate direction will be issued in this regard. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the court prima facie fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the prayer of the bank cannot be granted by this court. In addition to that, the contract is between the bank and the factory. The State Government and the Deputy Commissioner are not parties to the same. That being so, they cannot be directed to clear the dues of the bank before disbursing the sale proceeds. (iii ) The third prayer of the bank to declare the auction conducted on 14-12-2001, as null and void, cannot be granted at the instance of the bank. The prayer so made is contrary to the alternative prayer sought which is dealt with in sub-para (ii) above. In that, the bank seeks clearance of its dues before disbursing the sale proceeds. Thus, the prayers are conflicting with each other. Be that as it may, unless the bank establishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order at annexure L. The same cannot be quashed for any reason as the same is in accordance with law. Since the impugned notice at annexure M issued by the Tahsildar pursuant to the order at annexure L, the recovery certificate issued by the Cane Director under the provisions of the Control Order, cannot be quashed. 9. The contentions of Mr. Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the factory that the matter be remanded back to the Cane Director to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under clause 3(8) of the Control Order to determine the amount due to the farmers, is wholly untenable and deserved rejection. Such enquiry is warranted, where the amount is not determined. In the instant case, the Cane Director has referred to various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enable. 11. The writ petitions filed on behalf of the farmers have to be allowed. The impugned order at annexure D dated 11-12-2001, is passed by the BIFR in exercise of the power conferred under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA"), suspending the recovery action against the factory for a period of six weeks. As of now, the order has spent itself and it is no more in force. Hence, quashing of the said order does not arise. The first prayer made in the writ petition thus became infructuous. The second and consequential prayers are not properly sought in the writ petitions. However, the farmers have compulsorily supplied their sugarcane to the factory in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the farmers. The farmers are entitled for the statutory and legitimate payment at all times and under all circumstances. 12. The contention that recovery certificate cannot be enforced when the application is pending before the BIFR, does not hold water. The Control Order is a special order passed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Hence, the provisions of the Control Order shall prevail over the SICA. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labour in Karnataka [1998] 6 Kar LJ 280 ; and also the judgments of the courts in Standard Metal Industries v. Indian Overseas Bank [1997] 2 LLJ 1032 (Mad.) and BSI Ltd. v. Gift Holdings (P.) Ltd. [2000] 24 SCL 351 / 100 ....