{"id":226281,"date":"2010-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-24T05:58:57","modified_gmt":"2015-01-24T00:28:57","slug":"ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.G.Ramesh And Kumar<\/div>\n
 \n\nI W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &\n5246-49\/2009 (GM\u00bbR_ES)\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY,   I I\"\n\nPRESENTn_\n\nTI-IE HON'BLE MR.JUsTAI\u00a2E;1'H~;t;.R.A1v1\u00a7:s1\u00a7 \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JU$ffIoE --_A_I2Aif1raro_Kt;iv1AR\nW.A. Nos. 5243'\/'~26:-39 35 5;t246:V4L:a\/;:2Ioo9 {GMRES}\n\nBetween:\n\nM \/ s.Ind13\"Su.g\u00e9t--r.s';I--,and.__Re\ufb01nei\u00b0ieS._'  '\nLtd., ChI1twadg,:, Ho:-3pet*._'> \u00a2   '\nBeIIa1jy_VDi'strict'1\u00ab:;,__ _  '  ' ' \nRepoby itSoA!\\\/tanagef Fi\ufb01a'r1ce .\nP.S.Kris_h~na Murthgr\u00bb ' _  ' -\n\nS \/ 0 late P.K.Souridar'\u00abRaj..an-\n\n50 yrs.  -   . . .. Appellant\n(B;r'Sri.. G Vshahtaraju, Sr.counseI for\n\n Sr: H,VM.Shash.idhar, Kesvy 85 Co. )\n\n*   ----l)IAe-gouty Commissioner\n\n BeI_Ig1--ry Bistrict\n\" . Baellary 583 101\n\nState of Karnataka\n\nRep by its Secretary\nDepartment of Commerce and\nIndustries, Vikas Soudha\n\n{'33\n\n\n\n7 W.A.Nos.5243l2009 &\n5246-49\/2009 (GM--RES)\n\n \n\n1*\" \ufb02oor, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi\nBangalore--56O 001\n\n3 The Commissioner of Cane\nDevelopment and Director of Sugar\nNo.32, 691 \ufb02oor, Chowguie house\nCrescent Road\nBangalore-56O 001\n\n4 C H Srinivasa Rao \nS\/o Chinna Basavaiah A  ,\n42 yrs, r\/o Basavanadurg\u00e9gvi11.age\nNagenahalli Post -~ 583 21 1 \" ._ 1\nHospet Taluk, Be11ary.V__D'istrictI .\n\n5 T Channappar  --\nS \/ o Chidann'd__aj::.pa E V 1 ~  \n38 yrs, r\/o Nagcnah.\u00e9rI1i:';'Vi1lago  M  _\nand Post 583 211*  I :  \nH0spet\"Ta,luk;AWV' \nBe11ary\"D,iStri\u00e9.t. =i \n\n6  P Lime-;anr:3ago--uda, _\n1 A Soviatc.VShiVabas\u00e9rva:oagouda\n\" 40 yrs,.1'\/H QV'Na'gE;h'ah'a11i village\n\u00e9mud\u00e9 Post 583 21111\"\n-- .. Ho\"sp_et'Te;1uk-, B\u00e9llary District.\n\n\" V. K\"1--I\u00a7amap1:5\u00e9'@ Rarnanna\n_ v.5-fffroudappa\n_  Vyr_s','_.r\/o Benakapura village\n\" \u00ab N.a_g'\u20ac;;_n'ahaIli Post 583 21 1\nv_ .Ho--spet Taluk, Bellary District.\n\n8 \" V AIS K Praveena\n S \/0 late Kedareshwara\n28 yrs, r\/ o Nagenahalli village\nand Post 583 211\n\n\n\n \n\n3 W.A.N0s.5243\/2009 &\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)\n\nI-Iospet Taluk,\nBellary District. .. Respondents\ufb01<\/pre>\n
(By Dr.Ravivarrna Kumar, Sncounsel for  \u00abe
\nSri K N Phanindra, Adv for R-4, 5, 6, 7  \u00ab ..  :_. <\/p>\n
These WAS are \ufb01led ur1’d’er\u00a2 S’ect_ivc’)ri’V:v 4 it of’; the i<\/p>\n
Karnataka High Court Act praij,\/ing.,to jset as_id–e “Lh’e_ order<\/p>\n
passed in W.P.N0s3872O\/2009135 3.s764~’7″57, ?\n<\/p>\n
 Section 4 of the<\/p>\n
Karri\u00e9italt\u00e9ie  “‘C\u00a75urtA”_’}XCtV,’ are filed by fourth<\/p>\n
resfioziderit.ddestioriiii-zgshe correctness and legality of<\/p>\n
the order VpaisVs–ed’gl3y”‘”learned Single Judge dated 24-<\/p>\n
 iri ‘””W’.’P.Nos.38720\/2009 and 38764\u00bb<\/p>\n
i  it 767\/2i0i09s;r <\/p>\n
 parties are referred as to per their ranks<\/p>\n
 before the learned Single Judge. %<\/p>\n
4 W.A.Nos.S243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
3. The facts in a nutsheli are as follows:<\/p>\n
(i) The petitioners who are farrner.s_d?.are<\/p>\n
growing sugarcane in their lands situate<\/p>\n
villages of Bellary district and\u00bb__these”‘1ai;njds”‘~ <\/p>\n
petitioners are within the not:ifpied”tareai*fo’1′  <\/p>\n
of the fourth respondien’t….V — sugar   The-9’<\/p>\n
petitioners \ufb011edwritAp_..__pAetition  Nos.<\/p>\n
38720\/2009  seeking the
\nfollowing relief-S;  9 V 2 it it<\/p>\n
‘ *1::approp_ria’te.__VWrit or Order or Direction
\n‘A.  the Order \/ Endorsement
\n. V’ff-dated._”‘—- 16’-12-2009 bearing No.
\n‘ _ “I{aAM’,’..1T*ARA\/ISR 904\/2006-07 vide<\/p>\n
_ V’AI’\u00a3'(1\u20acX1_f{1″\u20ac-D, order \/ endorsement
\n *-dated” 16-12-2009 bearing No.
\n“”–.I\u00a7A1x.Ai\/ITARA\/ISR 904\/2006-07 vide
\nAnr1eXure–D 1 , order \/ endorsement<\/p>\n
 dated 16-12-2009 bearing no.\n<\/p>\n
~~ KAM\/ITARA\/ISR 904\/2006-07 vide
\nAnr1exure–D2, order \/ endorsement
\ndated 16- 12-2009 bearing No.
\nKAM\/ITARA\/ISR 904\/2006-07 Vide
\nAnnexure-D3 and order\/ endorsement
\ndated 16- 1 2-2009 bearing No.
\nKAM\/ITARA\/ISR 904\/2006-07 vide
\nAnnexure-D4, all passed by the 15?
\nrespondent and issued to the<\/p>\n
“‘Issu’e—Ta \\Nri.’t of certiorari or any other<\/p>\n
5 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246419\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
petitioners, in the interest of justice
\nand equity.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Issue a writ of mandamus or._any”o’t.h’er<\/p>\n
appropriate Writ or Order_.~-or
\ndirecting the respondents”-._VV1jto 3 “to
\npermit the peti.ti_one1{s’ “t’oTf’.se117.the ”<\/p>\n
sugarcane crop raisea oin-._tr1e.__lands
\nbelonging to. 1″them~.  _ to \u00bbC’~_tihie<\/p>\n
persons \/ factorie ‘S’~-‘Of their , choice in the ‘ = ~’
\nabsence of Agreenierit, b”e_tWe.eri the’-<\/p>\n
petitioners  the fc.ur’th’ respondent
\nas s_tipulatye.d_g”und_er Clau.se_rS of the
\nKarn__a’taka_:’i Sugarcane (Regulation of
\nDistriiilutio\ufb02lfE=(I~IospetV)l “Order, 1974 at
\nAnne2;ure.;\u00a3% the “ir1;t.e*rest of justice
\nc.j”and:equit3\u00a5.”_  – ~ ”\n<\/p>\n
  i’\ufb01’\u00a3v’_he’ll:’\u00a7. _ respondent–company has
\nestaljlirushed  and crushing sugar cane<\/p>\n
hazing  5:? “$2500 Tons Crushing per Day<\/p>\n
 _  a”s~_on  Government of Karnataka in<\/p>\n
..exercVis.e”  power conferred on it under Sugar<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
(Contrc1}.:l~”Order reserved certain areas in favour of<\/p>\n
 x Vagppellant — Sugar Factory whereunder farmers in the<\/p>\n
 reserved area were to supply sugarcane to the<\/p>\n
 appellant – Sugar Factory for crushing.<\/p>\n
7 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
4. When the matter was listed for prelirrlinary<\/p>\n
hearing before learned Single Judge on <\/p>\n
counsel for fourth respondent i.e., <\/p>\n
volunteered to appear and urirdtertookj V<\/p>\n
for fourth respondent and ‘thy  of <\/p>\n
counsel appearing for thejparties,.n’1atte_ruV.fas”taken’V’<\/p>\n
up for final hearing\ufb02xheard’ ‘”d.i.sposecl.,o\u00a7’3vy order
\ndated 24-12-2009 loyi._gii}ingl;:ce:rtai’n.’directions to all
\nthe concerned  farmers and
\nDeputy  said.-order is now assailed
\nin these   respondent on various
\ngroundsiuu . V  <\/p>\n
  “-ab_o_V& appeals were listed before this<\/p>\n
,  1512-2009 for prelirnineuy hearing. This<\/p>\n
  interim order dated 31-12-2009 had<\/p>\n
stayed operation of order passed by learned Single<\/p>\n
2 itludge dated 24-12-2009 subject to the conditions<\/p>\n
8 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n524649\/2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
stipulated therein. The said conditions reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
  A  ” “—–“‘cornpany
\n“rec-o_m’m.e-nee _ its’ ._:crushing of sugarcane
\n;_on’6–.1:2c.1Q:\n<\/p>\n
The appellant snail deposit:’.’all’s=.iin of”<\/p>\n
Rs. 1 .00 crore with re spondenit’ ‘
\nor before 5–1–20.10;_”‘r n ‘ ~ ..  <\/p>\n
The appel.lan.t  ‘keep*i’<\/p>\n
ready the”2._”perrr1its. “for  cutting
\nsugarcane p..a_n.fciv–.ir’1timate’ — the. “same to
\nthe ‘__c’once.rned”‘ farmers to come and
\ncollect ‘ the   in my accordance with<\/p>\n
the busVi’ness_ praot-ise;..’  <\/p>\n
shall<\/p>\n
‘the’iV.appel1’ant deposits money as per<\/p>\n
— V “cr.)nd’ition. No.1, supra, the respondent<\/p>\n
l\\lo..l= Ijeputy Commissioner shall take<\/p>\n
V’ ,p–roper”‘course of action to restrain the<\/p>\n
 Aifarmers, within the appellant reserve<\/p>\n
area, from transporting sugarcane to
\nsome other sugar factory. Further, he<\/p>\n
  shall not issue sugarcane permit to the
\n” farmers to transport to some other<\/p>\n
sugar factory. lf respondent No.1 has
\nalready issued sugarcane permit, he
\nshall take all measures to see that
\nsugarcane is not transported to some
\nother industry than that of the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
@<\/p>\n
{5}<\/p>\n
(5)<\/span><\/p>\n
(7)<\/span><\/p>\n
9 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\nS246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
The appellant shail issue permit to
\nrespondent Nos.4 to 8 within a.”period
\nof five days from today.\n<\/p>\n
The Deputy Commissioneifr  ~ .9
\nat liberty to disburse srnga_rca_fnerpric:-2_A
\nat the rate of,RS51,700\/’4″-per’tnetric V’<\/p>\n
tonne out of deposit .togth’e– supplier of<\/p>\n
sugarcane, within  a days. frorn the”–dilate<\/p>\n
of supply, _<\/p>\n
The appe11a;ntT”sha.l1  a ‘statement<\/p>\n
regarding c.rttshin.g of sugarcane with
\nall necessary deta\ufb02s. with respondent
\nNo.1″on-the ifol1o”w.ing ‘day of crushing,
\nregularly,  effect'{fI?0rn 6-1-2010.<\/p>\n
glf their  fails to\n<\/p>\n
1..,_d’epos:it._ “1?._s.l”.G-(J Crore with the Deputy<\/p>\n
 Comn1i.ssi_o11er on or before 5-1-2010,<\/p>\n
  * (9%)<\/p>\n
A  i .’1’1::t,he in’terirn*~order granted by this Court
\n  ..  ‘slhall4rCo.rne to an end automatically.<\/p>\n
 iriade clear on the next date of<\/p>\n
‘..l1earing, that is on 15-1-2010 in the<\/p>\n
“-V.eyfent of seeking extension of interim<\/p>\n
order, further necessary conditions
\nincluding further deposit would be<\/p>\n
it  imposed.\n<\/p>\n
 to}<\/p>\n
Learned Add1.Govt.Advocate is
\ndirected to communicate this interim
\norder to the Deputy Commissioner,
\nBellary, forthwith.” 6%}<\/p>\n
E0 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &
\n5246419\/2009 (GM~\u00bbRES)<\/p>\n
6. It is to be noticed by us that at the tirne of
\npassing interim order on 31\/ 12\/ 2009 by this <\/p>\n
was observed as follows-\n<\/p>\n
“On the other hand,:Sri.K.N–‘;if3hvanihd.fa;’_}_
\nlearned counsel for’:,’res:poAndents_’ 4   f
\nsubmits that the im’pug_11’ed osrder hash; <\/p>\n
been passed  by 7._e’t>nse.r’z’t .__s.nd;
\ntherefore the ‘present appeal is hot
\nmaintainable.  has.’ opposed
\ngranting =;-my inAte”rin_:1″order.”  <\/p>\n
7. On pa.ssing.~uf..theV’al:lo\\}e’V_siai.d”interim order,
\nthis Court   list the matter
\non   The above writ
\nappeals: for further orders on
\n13 \/01 \/2010 as.tier”l\\Eo_.tification No. HCCB (D) 2 \/2010<\/p>\n
aa1.iVV1_ir1 \/yo 1  1_Q,__y _<\/p>\n
   matter was listed before this Bench on
\n affidavit came to be filed by appellant<\/p>\n
 .. hereiniiwhich was sworn to by the Manager–I-“\ufb01nance of
\ni  aoibellant — sugar factory stating that the interim<\/p>\n
 order passed by this Court on 31-12-2009 had been<\/p>\n
11 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
complied with and the Deputy Commissioner, inspite<\/p>\n
of there being an order of this Court, had<\/p>\n
sugar cane grown in the reserved area to—be vd.iT\\7elrted”~a ”<\/p>\n
to other factories. The interim;’order  on<\/p>\n
12-2009 was not extended on     \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
9. Thereafterwardsajl”~n’1atter__   be i’<\/p>\n
adjourned to today’.zandp..ii’t’  oi3ss.erved”‘froa:ln order
\ndated 31-12–2009  the counsel
\nfor respondentis-a4  that present
\nappeals   and had opposed
\n   is also observed from
\nthe Qatar  that issue regarding<\/p>\n
Whether  24-12-2009 which is now<\/p>\n
 tVi’r1’tp1ig’ne’d.pin these appeals is a consent order or<\/p>\n
    kept open to be considered at a later<\/p>\n
S’t.ag\u00a3;_”ar1d’ accordingly an order came to be passed on<\/p>\n
 .. 3_’1\u00bbl2\u00ab;2009. The relevant portion of order dated<\/p>\n
it  s1+i12–2oo9 reads as under:<\/p>\n
*3<\/p>\n
I2 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
“On the other hand, Sri K
\nPhanindra, learned counsel
\nrespondents–4 to 8 submits that_.’t.h’e__’~._<\/p>\n
impugned order has been passed\u00bb  <\/p>\n
consent and therefore the _.gp<.rese'nt*
\nappeal is not rnaintainab1e,____He'has
\nopposed granting any~\u00bbinterii'n order. ' '<\/p>\n
"Whether the  '    \u00ab .  :7-A<\/p>\n
consent order,*o4_r otherwise iwouldibe;
\nconsidered at 1atei=._stage.'.'__ '   "<\/p>\n
10. Learned   ‘\\\ufb01\/ermaii Kumar
\nappearing for the  to 8 herein
\nreiterated  x that present
\nappeals since it is an order
\npas   ‘ \u00bb <\/p>\n
 the matter is listed for<\/p>\n
prelirninaijtilhearing,  learned counsel for appellant<\/p>\n
   Valfl\ufb01ldavit enclosing the letter dated<\/p>\n
  addressed by him to the Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner, Bellary District, Bellary.<\/p>\n
12. Sri G V Shantaraju, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
 appearing for appellant, would bring to the notice of<\/p>\n
13 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
this Court the order impugned in appeals particularly<\/p>\n
paragraphs 6, 8 8:. 9 to contend that learned <\/p>\n
for appellant herein i.e., counsel __for <\/p>\n
respondent before learned Single  v4_’_not_ <\/p>\n
concede and no consent was g’iVen_’i1’or <\/p>\n
amount\/ money in its entire:ty_eforAbeing_ by ” it<\/p>\n
the farmers. Elaborating  * —  E learned
\nsenior counsel would which has
\nbeen filed toc1.eiy:~ by  may kindly be
\n conceded by the
\ncounlselll  Sugarlvll3’actory before learned
\nSingle  that appellant herein<\/p>\n
undertoolll: ..to’id’eplositl the amount in three days in<\/p>\n
 referrinlgmit to the actual crushing to be done<\/p>\n
  it -b_yp’ap”pelEa:it-:”per day which would be 2500 TCD and<\/p>\n
accordingly it is contended that what was intended to<\/p>\n
 .. be deposited is Rs.-42,50,000\/– to be paid three days<\/p>\n
din’ advance and it is on this understanding that<\/p>\n
submission was made and order came to be passed.<\/p>\n
 ,<\/p>\n
E7 W.A.N0s.5243\/2009 &
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
Single Judge. He would further contend that if there<\/p>\n
were to be any doubt as to the understanding”of”-.t:h–eA<\/p>\n
order dated 24–12\u00bb2oo9 the appellant — segaeaaetesy it<\/p>\n
should have approached the learn–e.d  Ru<\/p>\n
Way of filing an applicationiff_oii’._iclarification”<\/p>\n
should not to have approached\u00bb the  as it<\/p>\n
has been done n0W’;.,.e_gHe   contend that in
\nView of the applicatioVn.’AhaVviin:g  \ufb01led by
\nthe appellant::lg\ufb01tf;2fore_’A  the course
\nleft open   same and not
\n    us to order impugned<\/p>\n
‘partticularly with reference to<\/p>\n
in these <\/p>\n
paragraph    contend that learned counsel<\/p>\n
  Sii”i*gaI’–.el3’actorff”before the learned single Judge on<\/p>\n
   given consent which in effect can be<\/p>\n
c’ategt’)1″i.sed under four categories:<\/p>\n
i  willing to crush sugarcane.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) financially Viable and Willing to deposit the<\/p>\n
amount in advance;\n<\/p>\n
I8 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
(iii) liberty to supply the sugar cane to ___any<\/p>\n
other sugar factory if not complyi1l’g.i:’Wit’h<\/p>\n
(i) and (ii) referred to above ar1d.’=<\/p>\n
(iv) the appellant ~ factory-to  <\/p>\n
and for all; if orders are not<\/p>\n
these terms.\n<\/p>\n
He would contendllthatl  on these
\ngrounds,  a#1ej’yirtuaJly by way
\nof veiled?   these ingredients are
\nnot   the appellant – factory
\nwould*be* left  option but to close down.<\/p>\n
Reiterating .the..vsub-mission made by learned counsel<\/p>\n
. if  .pfo’rC.reAs’pondentsedlltlo 8 made on 31-12-2009 regarding<\/p>\n
 rnaiiitairiab\ufb02ity of appeals, learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
  our attention to paragraph 6 & 8 of the<\/p>\n
 .. ordeI’~—and submitted that said order is passed solely
\n“”,.VVO’\ufb01’A”the submission \/consent of the counsel for fourth<\/p>\n
respondent appearing for Sugar Factory. He would<\/p>\n
19 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49f20U9 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
also submit that by virtue of the said concession<\/p>\n
made by counsel, the present appeals are~._:n_oit-._<\/p>\n
maintainable. He would submit sub–secAti:on4A:’<\/p>\n
Section 96 of CPC is expiicit Wh\u20acF\u20acL1nd\u20ac’.=f.ifEi’\u00a7a..]ji\u00e9idiio <\/p>\n
appeal lies against an order passed on con’s.epnt <\/p>\n
accordingly submits that  remedy Vaya’iiab}e”;to
\nappellant is to approach,t1eatr_neda..tIudge-rwtio has
\nPassed the order   review or
\nclari\ufb01cation      pp  iyould contend
\nthat by  and the order
\nhaviri\u00e9 s’u_ch’V’Vconsent, appellant is
\nestopped  in this appeal. He<\/p>\n
would u also ._:subi’nitV that by virtue of such consent<\/p>\n
  been giirien and orders passed pursuant<\/p>\n
 ‘VVtheV1feto’~.__on”.’-,:?4–12-2009, resp’ondents–4 to 8 and<\/p>\n
similarlycapiaced farmers were eagerly waiting to<\/p>\n
 .. receive\ufb01the amounts from Sugar factory though it was<\/p>\n
“1:Va’bysmal1y low when compared to what other Sugar<\/p>\n
“factories are paying to the farmers in neighbouring<\/p>\n
20 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n52464922009 (GM\u00bbRES)<\/p>\n
areas. Learned Sr.Counsel Sri Ravivarma Kurnar<\/p>\n
would submit that writ petitioners (respondenti”l\\los:.’4,,<\/p>\n
to 8 herein) would not have agreed  it<\/p>\n
namely to accept Rs.1,700\/– :pe’r”–Metfr’ic_,vl.’llon_ <\/p>\n
was not in consonance with the :’pre-=Jalent.p.rice <\/p>\n
this regard contentions    is
\nsought to be pressed   these
\nsubmissions, he would   to dismiss
\nthese appeals’   I<\/p>\n
I6,   , learned senior
\n  would submit that
\n it to be so given,<\/p>\n
when it  contrary the statute, would not be<\/p>\n
   and theiVCourt cannot pass an order contrary<\/p>\n
 tog. namely the Sugar Control Order by<\/p>\n
directing  appellants to deposit the amount within<\/p>\n
 three. -days from date of intimation by farmers<\/p>\n
 particularly when the regulation itself provides for 14<\/p>\n
i    days after taking delivery of sugar cane. In support of<\/p>\n
21 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n524649\/2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
his submission, he would rely upon the decision of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in case of UNION OF <\/p>\n
MOHANLAL LIKUMAL PUNJAB! (2004 _;i6’6;)”V~d1t?;%1\u00a7’IFtr ~<\/p>\n
296). _’  <\/p>\n
17′. Having heard 1ear’neci..A_’t”senio1f” ..cou’ni’se1~t\/..<\/p>\n
appearing for appellant _resp.ondents._fJ
\npoint arises for our consider-atVton:”’ .’ V<\/p>\n
“m Whether  appellant
\nare maintqindible?   ‘ggfziittft\ufb01alrther orders<\/p>\n
to be pass\u00e9c’i\u00a7_?V”:f-  ‘V j   <\/p>\n
:18.” * <\/p>\n
 learned counsel for the
\nparties, ‘it Wotpildl’.he–~._:r1ecessary for us to extract<\/p>\n
relevant  which have been pressed into<\/p>\n
  set’;\u00bb.\u00bbg.Ii’ce.”ovE3y”‘ both thtedvsides. Learned Senior Advocates<\/p>\n
   parties have taken us through the<\/p>\n
order  24-12-2009 in extenso to buttress their<\/p>\n
 respectoie contention and particularly paragraph 6<\/p>\n
t which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
“6. Per contra, Sri.H.N. Shashidhara<\/p>\n
contends that the respondent No.4-
\nwilling to crush the sugarcane  ‘V’
\nthe reserved area  t1;:\u00e9'”\n<\/p>\n
respondent is \ufb01nancia1\u00a53r’~ “‘vi’a~b_1e_   . p  ii i A<\/p>\n
willing to deposi:1::”~V.. _theA'” gaugenarrow
\nsugarcane to” be ..  the V vfarrhers
\nin advanced’   ._ Deputy
\n   respondent<\/p>\n
  rriorzey before taking<\/p>\n
Vde1i?.r\u00a2ry?’3:’fV”V’of’\ufb02the hstigarcane from the<\/p>\n
 petitioners bO3′._1″czlTJfy7 other farmers, in such<\/p>\n
 ._everit, the farmers who have grown<\/p>\n
“t’uAgarcarie’A!V3e given liberty’ to supply to<\/p>\n
 _”v=:.,._Ah,Vany.v”.1other sugar factory. He further<\/p>\n
‘.si;1bmits that, if such an order is not<\/p>\n
1. passed, the 4511 respondent — Factory has<\/p>\n
to be closed once for all.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied by us)<\/p>\n
23 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
19. In this background, it is to be examined by
\nus as to:\n<\/p>\n
‘Whether the order impugned   it
\nappeals is based on consent <\/p>\n
given by learned counsel Vappearing forj”::iartiif}  A
\nrespondent — Sugar Pacto-rryzi before  <\/p>\n
learned Single Judge’: 2   . _ _\n<\/p>\n
20. Having perused’l_the entire ord’er,V..i.”weHVfind<\/p>\n
that fourth respondent —  F*acto.ry\u00ab_had_ineither
\nentered caveat nor notiee, ordered on fourth<\/p>\n
respondent i.e.*,’ 5?’Pp\u20ac1’1arit:iherein_beforeilearned Single<\/p>\n
Judge;  ..iivlappearing for fourth
\nresporidentpV(appe11ant._:herein} volunteered to appear<\/p>\n
and-1.tnder’toiok~\u00bbt’o lfileiiisvakalath and agreed for the<\/p>\n
it  Ar;1″atter”l’Aheing taiieniiyup for final hearing and it is by<\/p>\n
it  S:.._ich eVo\u00abnSent_.:of parties, matter was heard once and<\/p>\n
\u00a351: al}”h\u00a7,?il1earned Single Judge. The relevant<\/p>\n
 paragraph in the impugned order makes it explicit<\/p>\n
i vvhieh reads as under:  –\n<\/p>\n
24 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
“Though the matter is listed for
\npreliminary hearing, Mr.H.N.SashidaIa
\nundertakes to file vakalath for?
\nrespondent No.4. The learned coui’isel”–\u00ab_
\nfor both the parties request the;C–oL1rt_i’
\nto take up the matter for final h.e’a*ring’.’=.”  h<\/p>\n
2. With the.-“consent   V
\nparties, the matter;__is Zheardonce ‘for <\/p>\n
all.”  v
\nThis aspect has neither been\u00abr.traversed.norjhireptzdiated
\nby appellant in the  or  any of
\nits affidavits filed in   contrary,<\/p>\n
what has l’lbyv.._…addressing oral<\/p>\n
 \ufb02biasis  the affidavit of the<\/p>\n
Advocate that understanding of the<\/p>\n
order, impiigned. in appeal by Deputy Commissioner is<\/p>\n
 erroneoils’ lllll Hperforced him to approach the<\/p>\n
    and as such would contend that even<\/p>\n
if it ispconstrued as consent given by learned counsel<\/p>\n
 for fouzeth respondent i.e., appellant herein, it is to be<\/p>\n
l’~_i;1’n::l’erstood in the manner as explained in the<\/p>\n
 ” ~—affidavit filed today. We are afraid that said<\/p>\n
25 W.A.N0s.5243\/2009 &
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
contention cannot be accepted for the following<\/p>\n
reasons:\n<\/p>\n
(1) It is not in dispute that order  <\/p>\n
these appeals was pronounced in open   ”  <\/p>\n
were to be any ambiguity or e1fi”oif…i1f1} understandtingt.’<\/p>\n
the same, nothing prevented
\nthe same to notice of  Judge
\nimmediately or seek  thereon.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Having not :donle::’sol,’–l thought fit to
\n\ufb01le an   iolflllorder of learned<\/p>\n
Single  S same  V admittedly pending.<\/p>\n
(3)uIt is alVsol:_S;seien._:froin the communication of the<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissionerlldated 29\u00ab~12~\u00ab2009 addressed to<\/p>\n
 – aPiDl\u00e91Ii\u00e911t”–i.SugarlSFeetory, wherein it is intimated that<\/p>\n
  ofders of learned Single Judge dated 24-<\/p>\n
l2\u00ab\u00ab~._2OQ’9  office of Deputy Commissioner received<\/p>\n
 “iintimations from farmers as on 29\u00ab~l2–2009<\/p>\n
S ‘ttyintimating the quantity of sugarcane grown and ready<\/p>\n
 ” iv-for supply and called upon the Sugar Factory to<\/p>\n
‘W<\/p>\n
26 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (CiM~RES)<\/p>\n
deposit the amount of Rs.48.4E3 crores which was not<\/p>\n
done. However, a reply has been sent on behalf-.._:of
\nSugar Factory by learned Advocate
\ndeposit only Rs.42.50 lakhs beinrgwthe \u00bb\u00bbeiiu’\u00a2–iii\u00a2r’25poo i<\/p>\n
Metric tonnes since its capacity  t’o”ciruish_”‘only that-t.:<\/p>\n
Quantity Per day and sou\u00e9h:,:f;.””fQr This
\nrequest has been turned ‘Commissioner
\nby order dated 30-12~l4i2(V)i.)’:9’~.l’ from the
\norder dated;   by Deputy
\n  to 8 herein and
\nother  their representation
\ndated  only intimated Deputy<\/p>\n
ComrnissiorrerVVbut*.also\ufb01ugar Factory about quantity of<\/p>\n
“–being”available for being supplied (though<\/p>\n
-Sugar  has refused to receive such<\/p>\n
represe_ntlatioiris) the Deputy Commissioner has rightly<\/p>\n
ll””‘–._V”‘proceed_ed to pass orders permitting the farmers to sell
\nit :thei.r5 sugarcane to other factories since money was not<\/p>\n
i   adleposited try Sugar factory.<\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n
27 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n524649\/2009 (GFVLRES)<\/p>\n
21. It would be necessary to extracVt–V:.f’th”e.u<\/p>\n
averments made in the affidavit filed  pp<\/p>\n
counsel for appellant filed today—-in  2
\nnamely, paragraph 9 which reads’ ‘~ . \u00ab. ” <\/p>\n
“However, our “-.cl’i~ent had’…f_i1e<i;
\napplication before\ufb01the learned Single
\nJudge for~.__clarificai\ufb01iorfe-.._of the" order
\ndated ~.24+1,2–2o0'9jaii \ufb02._in we
\nNo.38720\/2009   a_nd'~  'connected
\nmatters. :r'lr1.\u00a7iiew._'of the\u00e9vl\ufb01ling of the
\nappeai and conside'1'ationVVf'of appeal by
\n…tl1'is5';}f_1_c)n~?!3:le C_Vour;t,f;the said application
\nbecoIi1e–\u00ab infI5i;Ct'uofds"v.and our client will
\n"witfi1\u00ab:\u00a7.raw,_"'the "  when the said
\neap_plic'fation\u00bb…pi' comes up before the
\n' l.ea:*'r:'1:=:c'll Single. Judge. 2"<\/p>\n
In View of the sajne} contention of learned counsel for<\/p>\n
'  Atfieii\u00e9\ufb01iiiellant thaitmtinderstanding of the order and its<\/p>\n
1 " i.r11p~iernentation has led to the present<\/p>\n
 we reject said contention.\n<\/p>\n
sitL_1atio1:.r:annot be accepted by us and accordingly<\/p>\n
28 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM\u00abRES)<\/p>\n
22. It is seen from perusal of the order<\/p>\n
impugned in these appeals, it was an order <\/p>\n
consent\/concession by learned counsel_.”i3orAfioj;1rtl*i–_pl~-<\/p>\n
respondent — Sugar Factory:\u00bb~partic.ulariy..’jVlteepingo H’<\/p>\n
interest of both the parties  {V <\/p>\n
factory on the one hand  respondents3{‘fa1″:ners ‘ V<\/p>\n
on the other hand.,_ explicit
\nwhereunder it is held   ii.  l ‘<\/p>\n
:..”*E”l:ierefc$re,:  the*~Tbackground of this<\/p>\n
f..pa.r’ticular 1case_,,l:<eepin'g' open all the<\/p>\n
_c'ont'e'ntionf-St V. the. ' farmers to be<\/p>\n
 . 'V decipded 3 in" -an __ 'appropriate case, '_ch_g_s_<\/p>\n
..is"~.o'f theiibpinion, the ends of<\/p>\n
Vj;;;:;t._\u00bbic:e w_\u00a2_$_t;.1__c_1_Mbe met if an equitable<\/p>\n
. ordejr.Vis._=oa.,ssed in favour of both the<\/p>\n
, ~ parties _ba–sed on the submissions of
\n~. thej_eow:_:nsel for the 4'11' respondent."<\/p>\n
 ""*–~–{–Emphasis supplied by us)<\/p>\n
  ~ "l'cof1.sent\/ concession given by fourth<\/p>\n
\ufb02respo:1d'e_n't's counsel was the basis on which order<\/p>\n
cafI1,e_:3 to be passed for which writ petitioners<\/p>\n
it * .,_(respondent Nos.4 to 8 herein} have not objected and<\/p>\n
E have acquiesced in the said order.<\/p>\n
29 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n524649\/2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
23. When the order is made by virtue of consent<\/p>\n
the course left open for such litigant\/party”i:sf._tou<\/p>\n
approach the learned Judge who passed” V”<\/p>\n
order and seek clarification or s-eekreview the sa.r11el”–wA<\/p>\n
on any ground available under.\u00bbA:’la’:W.”=A.VA. <\/p>\n
CPC reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“96. Appeal’ frorr1″orLglzra’}.glecreef’;
\n =_(_3) Filo :a_ppeal’~v_jsha11j’ lie from a<\/p>\n
 decree p9.ssed””b’y the court
\n  w’i-tr:Vgthelcoiugsent of parties.”<\/p>\n
 it  for us to quote the<\/p>\n
decision of Hon.*b1e”‘.SAupreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
 rtis\ufb02m D,EvIlB’HAlGAT (B) BY LR vs RAJINDER<\/p>\n
dt’o*m1:Rs (AIR 2005 so 2628). The<\/p>\n
rel-e_var_1.t paragraphs reads as under:<\/p>\n
“question (i) — Whether the appeal
\nfiled by Pushpa Devi under Section 96
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure, against
\nthe consent decree was rnaintinabie.
\n ssssss <\/p>\n
30 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n524649\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
Re. Point No.(i)<\/p>\n
10. It is no doubt true that tl’ie”a.
\nlandlords did not contend either before’-\u00ab.V
\nthe first appellate court or befc–;re*\u00abti1.e_” 5 ;_
\nHigh Court that the appeal aga-insttth’e”l<\/p>\n
consent decree was not maintin_ab1e..<\/p>\n
This contention is urged for .t1fi’e”>j’3.rSt’.:V.’ <\/p>\n
time in this Court,  ‘contention<\/p>\n
relates to jurisdiction of the appe,1lat”e_”‘~ it<\/p>\n
court and is evident ‘front thee’.;.jr\u00a7:co_rd._V\u00a7
\nSuch a plea does notr..re’.qui,reV”;
\nevidence. F’urther\u00ab,._ being a’ contention
\nrelating V to the’ ju1’i.sdiction “of” the
\nappellate ‘-CT;)ur’t,  d’o_evsA’not requirek
\nany ‘pleadingi ThoVughV’-thi.Vs’;Court will
\nnot;.norrn.\ufb01l–y. pernjiit_ a”ne”W{‘p1ea to be
\nr.a1sed– at the…’he.aii*ir_igV_of’ the special<\/p>\n
  .;_petitio~n or :1′ an V “appeal under
\n‘ A_rticl”e’=.1  ‘such plea does not
\n“‘~i.n’x*o11yeV  ” question
\n.arnen3\u00a7irnerit.&”of pleading and is purely
\nQ one”-.o’fi _l’aw’,*–._ particularly relating to
\n~ jurisdictiCon&i”‘ofV~” the appellate court, it<\/p>\n
of fact or<\/p>\n
 ican”be’.ente_rtained by this Court (See<\/p>\n
Shanti Devi v. Bimla Devi<\/a> — AIR 1988<\/p>\n
SC=\u00a3Zy1_-4l_and Zahoor VS. State of UP. —<\/p>\n
 ._AIR 1991 sc 40}. In Hiralal v. Kasturi
\n&.._I’3e__vi (AIR 1957 sc 1853), this Court
\n” observed:\n<\/p>\n
” …… ..though the question of<\/p>\n
it it jurisdiction had not been urged before<\/p>\n
the High Court, it stares one in the face
\nof the judgment of the appellate court.
\nWe are satisfied that the appellate
\ncourt had no jurisdiction though
\nthis point was not raised in the High<\/p>\n
 “fro1’rr_ r–2:.~.1977
\n” proviso was added to Rule 3, Order 23<\/p>\n
31 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM-RES)<\/p>\n
Court, it is so obvious that we have<\/p>\n
permitted the plea to be raised beforelp
\nus.”\n<\/p>\n
In this case, the  <\/p>\n
raised being one relating to j1ririsdict–i.on
\nof the<\/p>\n
heard both sides theVi*eo’n,’<\/p>\n
11. Sectivor’i’*–_ 96 ‘..pro.Vi_”des; for
\nappeals from original, decrees. Sub~
\nsection ,{3..), ofV*””Sec:tioris~..96, however,
\nprovided that no appeal shall lie from a
\ndecree passed by’ \u00a5th_eii”court_. with the
\nconsent of’ the partiesd; “rnay notice
\n}r1e’re”_”that_ Order 43*, {,Ru_le_f’1 (m) of cpc<\/p>\n
ll1.’:1C?:vii__\u20ac_\u00a7c’:i.’:.’v’li1\u20ac’\u00a2_I’_pI’QR\/l\ufb01i\ufb01d for an appeal<\/p>\n
a..g’a,inst theffor’d.e,1* under Rule 3 Order<\/p>\n
 ;\u00ab\u00a3?ecor.d’ing or..__refL3’1sing to record an
\n” * A.agreernenltpcompromise or satisfaction.<\/p>\n
.Bui’.’fclaus’e,_(Ir;.1’of Rule 1, Order 43 was
\nornittejd, byfxct’ 104 of 1976 with effect
\nSimultaneously, a<\/p>\n
wi’th,effe.ct from 1~2~l977′. We extract<\/p>\n
..below the relevant portion of the said
\n= pr_oviso:\n<\/p>\n
‘Provided that where it is alleged<\/p>\n
by one party and denied by the other<\/p>\n
that an adjustment or satisfaction has
\nbeen arrived at, the court shall decide
\nthe question ….”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 3A was also added in Order 23
\nwith effect from 1-2-1977 barring any<\/p>\n
appellateV~–“‘court,  Wei’-havefl  A
\npermitted the said ,r-:.o1f1ftentio,n’— arid <\/p>\n
32 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\nS246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
suit to set aside a decree on the ground<\/p>\n
that the compromise on WhichHti1e”s._<\/p>\n
decree is based was not lawful.<\/p>\n
12. The position that
\nfrom the amended provisions–\u00bbo_ff~Orderp
\n23, can be summed:-u”p’thus_;& T b * V<\/p>\n
(i) no appeal is maihtainaible. ”
\nagain-s__t a l w<_:onsen\u00bbt"' decree}
\nhaving '$5-gard to  sp'c\u00a7cif"ic
\nbar contained "in section<\/p>\n
(ii) No’ a’ppeal_.~,_isdrrlaintainable
\nV.-V’againvst._’=,thelv_ order of the
\n C\u00a701J.~l’t  j’reVc_oi’ding the
\n cornptjoijiise, (or refusing to
\n“‘1fecordAi~  compromise) in
\nVi’e-v’v~.._Of,5’ the deletion of<\/p>\n
_ “clause (m) Rule 1, Order 43.\n<\/p>\n
— V ‘*(iii}*–._’No4 independent suit can be
\n  \u00bb– filed for setting aside a
\ncompromise decree on the
\n V ground that the
\n “””  compromise was not lawful
\nin View of the bar contained
\nin Rule 3A.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) A consent decree operates
\nas an estoppel and is valid
\nand binding unless it is set
\naside by the Court which
\npassed the consent decree,
\nby an order on an
\napplication under the<\/p>\n
Q4 ssss ..\n<\/p>\n
34 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246~49f2009 (GM~RES)<\/p>\n
maintainable, having regard to the
\nexpress bar contained in Section 96{fg3)x
\nof the Code.”   ”\n<\/p>\n
25. In View of the principles  <\/p>\n
FUSE-lPADEVI’s case referred to <\/p>\n
opinion that same is clearly applicable   <\/p>\n
circumstances of the present’V.i.cas_e and~ unable
\nto accede to the  learned
\ncounsel for the concession
\ngiven by  Factory before
\nlearned   as is sought to be
\nunde’;:jstoodV,VViV”uli’i:-.i%act’,4″Vsu’b–section (3) of Section 96 of
\ncpc  has.be’e’n:’:_”_rie1;erred to in PUS}-IPADEVI’s<\/p>\n
 referred “t-oiVsup.ra, in extenso would be squarely<\/p>\n
\u00bb vappglicablegto ___facts of the instant case also. Hence,<\/p>\n
. ‘the.iconte.’n–tion of learned counsel for appellant cannot<\/p>\n
Q accepted  it is hereby rejected.<\/p>\n
upon the decision of MOHANLAL referred to supra, to<\/p>\n
it   Learned counsel for appellant has relied<\/p>\n
{\ufb01g}. .\n<\/p>\n
35 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM\u00bbRES)<\/p>\n
contend that there cannot be an estoppei againstthe<\/p>\n
statute. The principles enunciated therein <\/p>\n
disputed. The order impugned in  i<\/p>\n
based on consent given by:-‘iiearnedp coun\u00abseVIVfor<\/p>\n
appellant herein since according”-to boti:f,”*naIne1’y,;”<\/p>\n
farmers as we\ufb02 as sugar  bad
\nto be done in a time’ on the
\nbasis of the past dues   crores
\nstill being   contended that
\nsaid dues’  of Annexure–C, as
\nextracted   clearly demonstrate
\nthat    referred to therein, are<\/p>\n
admitted   said question has been left<\/p>\n
   to>be’ adjudicated by appropriate authorities. Be<\/p>\n
  that’ fc1S:V’i\u00bbt.rna;.r,.1~we wouid not embark upon to examine<\/p>\n
as’–~.to the \ufb01eracity of statements made across the bar<\/p>\n
 on the.-issue regarding past dues, since it is not the<\/p>\n
i usubject matter.  ‘<\/p>\n
36 W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 &<\/span>
\n5246-49\/2009 (GM–RES)<\/p>\n
27. It is seen from order impugned in_..___this<\/p>\n
appeal particuiarly, paras 1, 2, 6, 8 85 9, <\/p>\n
based on a consent given by counsei apepearirngi’ V’<\/p>\n
Sugar Factory by keeping inteij-e’s”t”of <\/p>\n
and as such, we do not \ufb01nd  or <\/p>\n
the said order. The  is an .\u00a2’q1iit:ab’i,eViViorder.
\nIn View of the above”   bIioV.'{‘1)'”Vi:s to be
\nanswered by hoidin\u00e9\u00e9  intra-court
\nappeais are.-ig\ufb01czt  I View of our
\nconclusion’    appeals are not
\n  anyiivfiirther orders does not
\n order is passed:\n<\/p>\n
  d>d$RDER
\n  hereby dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
, gig};\n<\/p>\n
E3883<\/p>\n
Safe
\nEESSE<\/p>\n
 V.  .3},\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 Author: H.G.Ramesh And Kumar I W.A.Nos.5243\/2009 & 5246-49\/2009 (GM\u00bbR_ES) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, I I” PRESENTn_ TI-IE HON’BLE MR.JUsTAI\u00a2E;1’H~;t;.R.A1v1\u00a7:s1\u00a7 THE HON’BLE MR.JU$ffIoE –_A_I2Aif1raro_Kt;iv1AR W.A. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4608,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010"},"wordCount":4608,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010","name":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-24T00:28:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-sugas-and-refineries-ltd-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-bellary-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S India Sugas And Refineries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Bellary on 21 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}