ANAND AGRO CHEM INDIA LTD. Vs SURESH CHANDRA .
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-000897-000897 / 2014
Diary number: 28036 / 2013
Advocates: TAYENJAM MOMO SINGH Vs
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 897 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30515 of 2013]
Anand Agro Chem India Ltd. .. Appellant(s)
-vs-
Suresh Chandra & Ors. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the interim Order dated
31.7.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Writ Petition no.14936 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench
rejected the prayer of the appellant to stay the arrest of the
Directors and occupiers of the appellant company.
Page 2
2
-
3. The facts in nutshell are as follows. Respondents 1 to 3
supplied sugarcane to the sugar mill of the appellant in the year
2007-08, for which the appellant has not paid the price in spite of
several representations made by the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
This led to the filing of Writ Petition in Writ-C no.14936 of 2013 by
respondents 1 to 3 seeking for issuance of the Writ of Mandamus
directing the appellant herein to release the sugarcane price to
them. The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing both
sides directed the District Magistrate, Hathras to take immediate
action against the Directors and occupiers of the appellant-sugar
mill against whom several orders have been passed under the U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation and Supply) Act, 1913 and it further
observed in the order that the District Magistrate may in exercise
of his powers cause arrest of the Directors and occupiers of the
sugar mill to recover the dues and in the event of such arrest,
they will not be released until they have paid the entire amount
due against them. The appellant-sugar mill aggrieved by the said
order preferred a Special Leave Petition in SLP(C) no.16633 of
Page 3
3
2013 and this Court by order dated 1.5.2013 dismissed the
petition by observing thus :
- “We have heard Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
A reading of the order under challenge shows that the appellant has not paid Rs.16.12 crores to the farmers for the crushing year 2005-06 to 2009- 10, which includes the price of sugarcane, the cane development commission and the interest. It is also borne out from the record that vide letter dated 24.11.2012, the Director of the appellant had assured the Cane Commissioner that the company will pay Rs.160 lacs as the price of the cane within two weeks and an amount of Rs.700 lacs in installments, the first of which will be paid on 15.01.2013, but the company did not fulfill its assurance.
In the above backdrop, it is not possible to find any fault with the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court and there is absolutely no justification for this Court’s interference with the impugned order.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.……..”
Page 4
4
Thereafter the appellant-sugar mill filed an application in the
pending Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
seeking for stay of arrest of the Directors pursuant to the order
dated 26.4.2013 and the Division Bench of the High Court after -
hearing both sides and after referring to the earlier orders held
that no modification/vacation of the order dated 26.4.2013 is
required and, accordingly, rejected the prayer of stay of arrest.
Challenging the said order the appellant-sugar mill has preferred
the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Ram Jethmalani and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellant, Ms.
Shobha Dixit, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents and Mr. Prabodh Kumar, Advocate appearing on
behalf of the intervenor.
5. The contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate is
that the property of the sugar mill has already been attached to
recover the dues and the sale notice has been issued and unless
there is proof of the minimal fairness of willful failure to pay in
spite of sufficient means, the arrest cannot be ordered and it
Page 5
5
would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jolly George
Varghese and Another vs. The Bank of Cochin (1980) 2 SCC
360. He further contended that in any event the Director, whom
he -
representing, is a senior citizen above 65 years of age and hence
he cannot be arrested as a defaulter in payment of arrear of land
revenue as stipulated in Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006.
6. When the matter was listed before this Court on 7.10.2013,
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant said that the Directors of the mill undertake to pay
Rs.4.55 crores representing fifty per cent of the total amount to
the concerned authority within a period of six weeks and this
Court stayed the arrest subject to fulfillment of the condition.
Again the matter was listed on 19.11.2013 and Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior counsel said that by mistake he made a
statement about the total amount payable by the writ petitioner
but the amount is far less than that and requested for time to file
Page 6
6
additional affidavit on behalf of the appellant. In the next two
hearings the matter was adjourned on the request made by the
appellant and thereafter the matter was heard.
7. Section 17 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1953 stipulates that the occupier of the sugar -
factory shall make speedy payment of cane price and in the
event of default, sub-Section (4) stipulates that the Cane
Commissioner shall forward to the Collector a certificate
specifying the amount of arrears of the cane price due from the
occupier and the Collector shall proceed to recover the said
amount from such occupier as if it were an arrear of land revenue.
Section 170 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 prescribes
the process for recovery of arrears of land revenue, wherein it is
mentioned that it may be recovered by anyone or more of the
processes mentioned therein which includes by arrest and
detention of the defaulter and attachment and sale of his
movable property.
8. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in its order
dated 26.4.2013 has directed the District Magistrate, Hathras,
Page 7
7
namely, the Collector to take immediate action against the
Directors and occupiers of the appellant-sugar mill against whom
several orders have been passed under the U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation and Supply) Act, 1913 and this Court has confirmed
the said order. The Division Bench in the present application
considered the plea of the -
appellant for the stay of arrest and after hearing both sides
rejected the said plea by the impugned order and we find no error
in it.
9. We say so firstly because order dated 26th April, 2013
passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
directing the District Magistrate to take immediate action
against the Directors of the sugar mill has already been
affirmed by this Court in appeal. The question whether or not
one of the Directors who is said to be 65 years old could be
arrested as a defaulter and committed to prison under Section
171 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, could and
indeed ought to have been raised by the appellants either
before the High Court or before this Court in appeal preferred
Page 8
8
against the order passed by the High Court. No such
contention was, however, urged at that stage.
10. Secondly, because the company and its Directors have
not made their promises good by paying even the amounts
which they had offered to pay. A plain reading of order dated
1st May, 2013 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No.16633 of 2013
extracted above would show that the company and its
Directors -
had assured the Commissioner that they would pay Rs.160 lacs
towards price of sugarcane within two weeks besides an
amount of Rs.700 lacs to be paid in installments, the first of
which installment was to be paid on 15th May, 2013. No such
payment was, however, made by the company and its
Directors. That apart, the statement made at the bar on 7th
October, 2013 by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel,
for the appellant that the Directors would pay Rs.4.55 crores is
also sought to be withdrawn on the ground that the same was
made under a mistake. It is evident that the company and its
Directors have been despite promises made on their behalf
Page 9
9
committing breach of such assurances on one pretext or the
other.
11. Thirdly, because there is nothing before us to suggest that
the company and its Directors are incapable of raising funds
for liquidating the outstanding liability towards dues payable to
the farmers. Simply because the sugar factory has been
attached, is no reason for us to assume that the company or its
Directors are in any financial distress thereby disabling them
from making the payments recoverable from them. The fact
situation in the -
present case is, therefore, completely different from that in
Jolly George Varghese case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Ram
Jethmalani.
12. In the light of the above, we see no compelling reason for us
to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in exercise of
our extraordinary jurisdiction. We regret to say that the amounts
due to the farmers towards price of the sugarcane and incidentals
remains to be paid to them for several years in the past thereby
accumulating huge liability against the company. That is not a
Page 10
10
happy situation nor can repeated invocation of the process of law
by the appellant be a remedy for it.
13. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
…………………………….J.
(T.S. Thakur)
……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)
New Delhi; January 24, 2014.