Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Mehrotra J. dated 19-4-1955, dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE appellant, herein referred to as the Society, is a cane-growers' co-operative society; the first respondent, herein called the Company, is a limited company carrying on the business. of manufacturing sugar out of sugarcane, and the second and third respondents are respectively the Commissioner of the Gorakhpur Division and the Cane Commissioner. Individual cane-growers within the area which had been reserved for the supply of cane to the Company under the provisions of the United Provinces Sugar Fectories (Control) Act, 1938, supplied their cane to the Company through the Society, and the Company, with the previous permission of the Cane Commissioner, had prior to 1-4-1952, advanced loans to the individual cane-growers to enable them to improve the quality and 'quantity of the cane which they supplied. The Company also from time to time advanced loans to the Society, such loans being repayable either in cash or by adjustment of the accounts between the Company and the Society.
(3.) ON -3-4-1952, the Company entered into an agreement with the Society (herein called the first agreement) whereunder the latter made provision for repayment of moneys advanced to it by the Company, and agreed also to be responsible to the Company for the repayment to the latter of such of the outstanding loans made by the Company to the individual cultivators as the Society was able to verify. Thereafter on 30-12-1952, the Company entered into another agreement with the Society (herein called the second agreement) in the form prescribed by the Rules made under the Sugar Factories (Control) Act for the supply of cane to the Company for the season 1952-53. The price of the cane supplied under this agreement was Rs. 15,92,000, and this amount the Company has paid to the Society after deducting therefrom the sum of Rs. 2,39,666/6/3 which it claimed to be due to it by the Society under the first agreement; and on 11-10-1953, it obtained from the Society a receipt in full and final settlement of the price of cane and commission payable to the Society in respect of the cane supplied during the 1952-53 season. In the following month however the Society demanded from the Company payment of the balance of the price of the cane supplied, namely, Rs. 2,39,666/6/3 and upon the Company declining to pay, the Society on 30-12-1953, purporting to act under clause (10) of the second agreement referred the matter to the Cane Commissioner for arbitration. The Company contended that the Cane Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the Society and, alternatively, that if he had jurisdiction he had jurisdiction also to consider the claim by the Company to deduct from the price of the cane payable by it to the Society the amount due by the Society to the Company. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, and not denied by the respondents, that on the matter coming before the Cane Commissioner on 17-4-1954, the latter heard argument only on the question of jurisdiction, reserving argument on the merits to a later date. Nevertheless the Cane Commissioner by his order dated 23-4-1954, made an award in favour of the Society for the full amount claimed by it with costs and interest. An appeal by the Company to the second respondent was rejected on the round that no appeal lay.;