{"id":90648,"date":"2000-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000"},"modified":"2015-08-26T02:05:12","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T20:35:12","slug":"diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Quadrj<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4872 of 1989\n\nPETITIONER:\nDIWAN SUGAR MILLS AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. KIRPAL & SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRJ\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2000 (3) SCR 948<\/p>\n
The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n
The challenge in this appeal as well as in the connected writ petition is
\nto the decision of the Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Sugar Undertak-
\nings (Acquisition) ACT, 1971 which had interpreted Section 7 of the said
\nAct and had come to the conclusion that the claim of the appellant for
\npayment of Rs. 12 lakhs could not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Briefly stated, the facts are that M\/s. Diwan Sugar Mills was a partnership
\nfirm which owned a sugar factory. On 1st July, 1951, this factory is stated
\nto have been leased out to M\/s. Diwan Sugar and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.
\nThis factory was first taken over by the Government of India under the
\nDefence of India Rules on 4th December, 1965 and thereafter it was taken
\nover by the U.P. Government under Section 15 of the Industrial Development
\n& Regulation Act. Ultimately, the factory was acquired by the U.P. Govern-
\nment under the aforesaid Acquisition Act.\n<\/p>\n
The owners, namely, the partnership firm filed a claim before the
\nprescribed authority for payment of compensation. The case of the owners
\nwas that under sub-section (5) of Section 7 read with the Schedule to the
\nsaid Act, a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was payable in respect of the acquisition
\nof the properties and assets and the said payment should be made without
\ndeducting any liabilities of the lessee. On the prescribed authority
\nrejecting this con-tention, the owners then filed an appeal under Section
\n11 of the said Act before the Tribunal but without success. The appeal is
\nby special leave from the said decision of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
In order to understand the controversy in issue, we may first refer to
\nrelevant provisions of the said Act. Section 2(h) defines ‘scheduled under-
\ntaking’ to mean an undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of
\nsugar and comprises of plants, machinery, workshop, etc. This scheduled
\nundertaking vested with the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. by virtue of
\nSection 3 of the Act which provides that such vesting and transfer shall be
\nfree from any debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien, etc.
\nSection 7 provides for determination and mode of payment of compensation.
\nSub-sections (1) to (6) of Section 7 which are relevant for our purpose
\nread as follows .\n<\/p>\n
“7. Determination and mode of payment of compensation. -(l)(a) Subject to
\nthe provisions of clauses (b) and (c), the State Government shall pay as
\ncompensation for any sugar stocks com-prised in a scheduled undertaking
\ntheir value, which shall be calculated at the ex-factory market price
\nprevailing immediately before the appointed day, minus basic excise duty
\nand additional excise duty in lieu of sales tax leviable thereon.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  Such sugar stocks shall be disposed of from time to time (if
\nnecessary, by arrangement with any bank which has made advances before the
\nappointed day on the security thereof), and as and when the stocks are
\ndisposed of, so much of the said compensation as relates to the quantity
\ndisposed of shall be paid in cash by deposit with the prescribed authority
\nin accordance with the provisions, of sub-sections (6) and (9).\n<\/p>\n
(c) Out of the said compensation the amount of any advance or, as the case
\nmay be, the proportionate amount of advance, made on the security of the
\nquantity disposed of together with interest and any other charges relating
\nthereto payable under the terms of the advance, and storage and other
\nincidental charges relating thereto payable to the Corporation or to any
\nother person, shall be paid first, and the balance shall be deposited as
\naforesaid with the prescribed authority and be paid to the persons entitled
\nthereto in accordance with the decisions of that authority or of the
\nTribunal, as the case may be, under sub-section (9) or sub-section (12) or
\nunder Section 8, Section 9 or Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The State Government shall pay as compensation for the acquisition of
\nany stocks of molasses comprised in the scheduled undertaking their value
\ncalculated at the price prevailing immediately before the appointed day, as
\nfixed under the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam,  1964 (U.P. Act
\nXXIV of 1964), and the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1)
\nshall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such compensation.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  The State Government shall pay as compensation for the acquisition of
\nany stocks of sugarcane comprised in the scheduled undertaking the actual
\ncost of their purchase, as may be agreed upon between the State Government
\nand the persons interested and failing such agreement, as may be determined
\nby the prescribed authority.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  The State Government shall pay as compensation of the acquisition of
\nany sugar in the process of production or any bagasse or press-mud
\ncomprised in the scheduled undertaking its market value as may be agreed
\nupon between the State Government and the persons interested, and failing
\nsuch agreement, as may be determined by the prescribed authority.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  In addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-sections
\n(1), (2), (3) and (4) for the acquisition of the properties and assets
\nreferred to in those sub-sections, the State Government shall pay as
\ncompensation for the acquisition of every scheduled under-taking specified
\nin Column 2 of any of the Schedules to this Act an amount specified against
\nit in Column 3 thereof, by depositing it with the prescribed authority in
\naccordance with the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (9) and the same
\nshall be paid to the persons entitled thereto in accordance with the
\ndecisions of that authority or of the Tribunal, as the case may be, under
\nsub-section (9) or sub-section (12) or under Section 8, Section 9 or
\nSection 11.\n<\/p>\n
(6)  The State Government shall provisionally deduct from the compensation
\nreferred to in sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) the following
\namounts, namely :\n<\/p>\n
(a) any amount due on account of any debt, mortgage, charge or other
\nencumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation attached to the scheduled
\nundertaking which by virtue of the provisions of Section 3 shall, on the
\nappointed day, attach to the compensation in substitution for the
\nundertaking :\n<\/p>\n
(b)  any amount due to any cane-growers or any cane growers’ cooperative
\nsocieties in respect of the price of sugarcane sup-plied by such cane-
\ngrowers or by members of such society to the scheduled undertaking before
\nthe appointed day;\n<\/p>\n
(c) any amount of wages, retaining allowance, bonus, provident fund or
\nother payment due to persons employed as workmen (within the meaning of the
\nU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) in connection with the scheduled
\nundertaking immediately before the appointed day;\n<\/p>\n
(d) any amount due in respect of either the employer’s contribu-tion or the
\nemployees’ contribution realised by the employer or any other dues
\nrecoverable from the employer under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952
\nor the Employees’ State Insur-ance Act, 1948, in respect of persons
\nemployed in connection with the scheduled undertaking immediately before
\nthe appointed day that the employer may have failed to pay in accordance
\nwith the respective Acts;\n<\/p>\n
(e) any amount, not being an amount referred to in clause (a), claimed by
\nthe State Government to be due immediately before the appointed day from
\nany person interested in the scheduled undertaking on account of any loan,
\ntax or cess, or any penalty or interest due in respect of such loan, tax or
\ncess, – and deposit the balance, if, any, with the prescribed authority,
\nand where such deductions arc equal to or exceed the compensation, it shall
\ninform the prescribed authority accordingly :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the amount provisionally deducted under clause (a), in so far
\nit is not claimed by the State Government as due to itself, be deposited
\nwith the prescribed authority for disbursement to the persons interested
\naccording to their respective titles.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation. – The amounts referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)
\nshall be provisionally deducted on the basis of information available with
\nthe State Government in respect thereof, and it shall be open to the State
\nGovernment to obtain relevant information either from the Corporation or
\nfrom the Cane Commissioner, the Labour Commissioner, the Employees’
\nProvident Fund Commissioner or the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation,
\nas the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
As already noticed in Schedule I to the Act at SI. No. 6 it is stated that
\ncompensation of Rs. 12 lakhs is to be paid to Diwan Sugar Mills which is
\nalso described as Diwan Sugar and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. which is stated
\nto be the lessee of the factory.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Rajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended
\nthat the compensation referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 7 is
\npayable only to the owner of the undertaking and no deduction from the said
\namount of Rs. 12 lakhs is required to be made under clauses (b) to (e) of
\nsub-section (6) of Section 7. He has submitted that me amounts due which
\nare referred to under clauses (b) to (e) are attributable or relatable only
\nto the lessee and from the amount of compensation payable to the owner it
\nwill be unfair and unjust to deduct any such amount.\n<\/p>\n
Despite the fact that along with the appeal, a petition under Article 32
\nhas been filed by one of the partners of the firm which owned the said
\nfactory, there is no challenge to the vires of the Act or Section 7 in
\nparticular. What we are, therefore, to see is what is the correct
\ninterpretation of the said Section 7.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 7 talk of compensation in respect of
\nsugar, molasses, sugarcane and sugar in process of production or any
\nbagasse or press-mud. The manner in which compensation in respect of the
\nsugar stocks to be calculated is indicated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 7. Sub-section (5) provides that in addition to the
\ncompensation payable under sub-sections (1) to (4) an amount stipulated in
\nthe Scheduled will also be payable as compensation for the acquisition of
\nthe scheduled undertaking. From the amount of compensation arrived at under
\nsub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 7, the State Government is required to
\ndeduct the amounts referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (6).
\nWhat remains after the said deductions is the sum which is required to be
\ndeposited with the prescribed authority which is then distributed or
\ndisbursed to the persons interested according to their respective titles.\n<\/p>\n
Till the stage of distribution the amount of compensation is regarded as
\none composite sum. From the total amount payable, the deductions under sub-
\nsection (6) are first to be made and Section 7 does not provide that
\ncompensation for the acquisition of the scheduled undertaking referred to
\nin sub-section (5) is to be treated differently from the compensation of
\nthe stocks, etc., envisaged by sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 7. It is
\nfrom the sum total of the compensation so arrived at that deductions under
\nsub-section (6) are to be made. It is true that the deductions refered to
\nby clauses (b) to (e) of sub-section (6) may relate to the enterprise which
\nwas actually running the undertaking, in this case the lessee, but sub-
\nclause (a) of sub-section (6) which refers to the amount due on account of
\ndebt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrances can conceivably relate to any
\nsuch debt, mortgage, charge, etc., undertaken by the owner himself. If the
\nproceeds of sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 7 can be utilised, along
\nwith the compen-sation under sub-section (5), for paying the amount due on
\naccount of a debt or a mortgage which may have been incurred by an owner,
\nthan it is not incongruous that compensation referred to in sub-section (5)
\nof Section 7 may likewise be used for discharging the amounts due under
\nclauses (b) to (e) of Section 7(6). In other words, the Act requires the
\nentire compensation payable to put in one basket from which payments to
\ndifferent types of creditors under sub-section (6) have to be made and
\nthereafter the balance, if any, which remains is the only amount which is
\nrequired to be deposited with the prescribed authority for disbursement to
\nthe persons interested therein.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the appellant\/petitioner has placed reliance on
\na decision of this Court in East India Coal Company Limited v. East
\nBulliaree\/Kendwadih Colliery Co. (P) Limited and Others,<\/a> [1987] 2 SCC 124
\nand submitted that there has to be apportionment of the compensation.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the said decision has no application in the present case.
\nEast India Coal Company Ltd. (supra) was concerned with the Coking Coal
\nMines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. There were owners who owned the said
\nmines and there were also raising contractors and selling agents who were
\noperating the coking coal mines. That Nationalisation Act contemplated
\ncompensation being paid to the owners. The raising contractors and selling
\nagents had contended, and this is what this Court was concerned with, as to
\nwhether these raising contractors and selling agents could also be regarded
\nas owners or not. This Court held that after reading the scheme of the
\nNationalisation Act, the raising contractors would also come within the
\nambit of the expression ‘owner’ in the Act and thereafter it determined as
\nto how the compensation between two types of owners was to be distributed.
\nThat question does not arise in the present case. As we have already seen,
\nSection 7 of the Acquisition Act requires all types of compensation payable
\nunder sub-sections (1) to (5) being first utilised for discharging the
\nliabilities under sub-section (6) and thereafter if any amount remains that
\nis to be deposited with the prescribed authority for distribution amongst
\ninterested persons. The aforesaid decision in East India Coal Company’s
\ncase has no application in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, we come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal
\nas well as in the writ petition and the same are dismissed. However,
\nparties will bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 Bench: B.N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Quadrj CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4872 of 1989 PETITIONER: DIWAN SUGAR MILLS AND ORS. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/05\/2000 BENCH: B.N. KIRPAL & SYED SHAH MOHAMMED […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDiwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - 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\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T20:35:12+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T20:35:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2286,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T20:35:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - 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\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T20:35:12+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T20:35:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000"},"wordCount":2286,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000","name":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T20:35:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/diwan-sugar-mills-and-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-3-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Diwan Sugar Mills And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 3 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/90648","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=90648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90648\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}