Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966

The appellants, Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills and Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd., challenged the Central Government's fixation of levy‑sugar prices for the 1983‑84 and 1984‑85 sugar years, arguing that the government ignored the additional price payable to cane growers under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and the …

The appellants, Sahyadri Co‑operative Credit Society Ltd. and Navhind Co‑operative Credit Society Ltd., had advanced loans to sugar factories Daulat Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Tasgaonkar Sugar Mills Ltd. and obtained a pledge over sugar stock as security. When the factories defaulted, the Commissioner o…

The Supreme Court examined the fixation of levy‑sugar prices for the years 1974‑75 to 1979‑80 under Section 3(3‑C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Earlier the Court had directed the Government to amend the notifications to include the sugar producer’s liability under clause SA (5A) of the Sugarcane (Control) Or…

The Supreme Court examined the validity of a series of notifications fixing the price of levy sugar under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Sugar manufacturers contended that the Government had not taken into account the four factors prescribed in Section 3(3C) – minimum cane price, manufacturing cost, taxes and a r…

The Supreme Court examined a reference concerning whether the Uttar Pradesh government could fix a State Advised Price (SAP) for sugarcane under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and whether such power conflicted with the Central government's authority to fix a minimum price…

The petitioners, owners of khandsari sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the applicability of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (as amended in 1970) to their product, arguing that what they produce is "khandsari sugar" and not "khandsari" covered by the Act, and that the levy of market fee and lice…

Mis. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, applied for a licence to set up a power‑crusher unit for manufacturing rah from sugarcane. The application was initially rejected under the existing licensing policy, but after the State Government modified the policy on 15 November 2003, a fresh application by …

The Supreme Court examined appeals by several cooperative sugar factories and the State of Maharashtra against a Bombay High Court order that directed non‑member sugarcane growers to be paid the prevailing market price and to be allowed to sell to any factory. The Court held that the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reserv…

The appellants, sugar manufacturers Arooran Sugars Ltd. and E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd., challenged assessments that included planting subsidies and transport charges in their taxable turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. They argued that the subsidy agreements were independent of the sale contracts and …

The Supreme Court examined a series of civil appeals concerning the payment of outstanding principal amounts to sugarcane growers by sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh. The crux of the dispute was whether the State Government could fix a State Advised Price (SAP) for sugarcane that exceeds the minimum price fixed by the …

S.K.G. Sugar Ltd., a sugar factory with a reserved area under the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, paid the Central Government‑fixed minimum price of Rs.13.92 per quintal for sugarcane as prescribed in the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The State Government, acting in its statutory capac…

The State of Madhya Pradesh sought recovery of unpaid sugarcane prices and interest from Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. and other factories under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 and the M.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act. The growers and factories had, in 1976, orally …

The Supreme Court examined whether the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (the Market Act) could be applied to transactions involving sugarcane, sugar, molasses, wheat products, vegetable oils, rice, milk products and tea. It held that the special statutes governing sugarcane, sugar and molasses – the Bihar S…

In Uttar Pradesh, a severe sugar shortage prompted the Cane Commissioner to issue a notification under clause 8 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, banning all power crushers in the reserved areas of sugar mills from 9 Oct 1980 to 1 Dec 1980, except those described as ‘vertical’. The petitioners, owners of such cru…

M/s Sri Chamundeswari Sugar Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, purchased sugarcane from growers and paid the Statutory Minimum Price fixed by the Central Government together with the State Advised Price (SAP) fixed by Karnataka. The assessing authority levied purchase tax on the total amount, including SAP, under the Karnatak…

The case concerned whether the Uttar Pradesh Government could fix a "State Advised Price" (SAP) for sugarcane that was higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government under the Essential Commodities Act and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The petitioners (U.P. Co‑operative Cane Union Federation and s…

E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, purchased sugarcane at a statutory minimum price and an additional price under Clause 5‑A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The additional price could be determined only after the sugar year ended, so the company paid an advance on that price, recorded only the min…

The petitioners, manufacturers of khandsari sugar, challenged a Uttar Pradesh Government notification that allowed a rebate of 0.625 kg per quintal for the binding material when sugarcane was brought in bundles. They argued that the power to prescribe such a rebate was conditional on fixing a minimum price, that the ra…

The Uttar Pradesh Government, under Section 14(1)(a) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, granted a remission of purchase tax of Re. 0.51 per quintal to twenty sugar factories in the eastern zone that purchased sugarcane yielding low recovery, while denying the same relief to other similarly situated factori…

The dispute arose when Ojas Industries filed an Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) to set up a sugar mill, and Oudh Sugar Mills filed a later IEM within 7.2 km of Ojas' proposed site. The Delhi High Court held that the 15‑km distance rule applied only between an existing and a proposed mill, not between two propo…