No annual provision had been made from profits for redemption of the same inasmuch as until the year 1949 the appellant was not working at a profit. of the quantity produced in their -factories; (ii) they are paid only their proportionate 91 share of the nett sale-proceeds realised in the foreign market; and (iii) a penal cess is imposed on those who make default in supplying the goods. 1,50,000, for 1953-54 Rs.
2,50,000 had been made by it for debenture redemption reserve. Lawyer in Chandigarh 3,50,000 for the purposes of bonus formula was clearly untenable. The correspondence between the State and the industry shows that the industry as a whole co-operated with the State. the right to work the area in which the working was to be abandoned was part of the capital asset consisting of the right to work the whole area demised. But it is not for this Court to evaluate the comparative merits of different schemes so long it is satisfied that the scheme actually evolved stands the test of reasonabless.
To capture foreign market or to have a substantive share therein is not an easy task, as it depends upon many imponderables, namely, the availability of sugar, its demand, its comparative merits with the sugar produced in other markets, transport facilities, mutual agreement requirements, international affiliations etc. Had the abandonment extended to the whole area all subsequent profit by working would, of course have been impossible but it would be impossible to contend that the compensation would be other than capital.
Initial loss must have to be borne to get a foothold and the clear 92 objective will have to be pursued purposefully and tena- ciously. The respondent, Gian Chand, filed an election petition for a declaration that the appellant’s election was void. 30 lacs in the year 1942-43 and they were redeemable in the year 1962-63. Such provision was made only thereafter. To achieve the said objective, with the consent of the industry and on the basis of past experience, the Act was passed by the Parliament.
The three restrictions are really the props of the scheme. The claim of the appellant was for a sum of Rs. We do not think that learned counsel for the respondent is right Lawyer in Chandigarh his submission that Janardan’s evidence directly proves the relation between Lokenath and his alleged daughters, Abalya, Brindabati and Malabati. 50, the evidence of Janardan Misra is direct evidence of facts which he saw and which should be treated as . It was the price paid for sterilising the asset from which otherwise profit might have been obtained.
2,50,000 which had been actually provided for the purpose in the balance-sheet, negativing the contention of the respondents that no provision should be allowed for debenture redemption fund Solicitors in Chandigarh the bonus formula. Though the final payment was deferred till the nett sale-proceeds were realised, they would be paid the price for the sugar supplied, at the rates fetched in the foreign market. The State earns foreign exchange, and a foreign market is gradually built up for the future prosperity of the sugar industry.
Lawyer in Chandigarh (i) Lawyer in Chandigarh They must contribute to the stock for export, not exceeding twenty per cent. The beneficial results flowing from the Act are significant. 75,000 for debenture redemption fund, for 1951. It may be that a better scheme might have been evolved by the legislature or it might be more beneficial from the standpoint of owners of factories if the State purchased the exportable quantity for ready cash and exported the same on its own account. The State as well as the industry are equally interested to stimulate foreign trade and build tip foreign market.
For the year 1950-51, the appellant made Lawyer in Chandigarh a provision for Rs. in evolving the scheme, which culminated in the passing of the Act. 75,000 and further provision had to be made for redemption of debentures in a sum of Rs. directly proving the relationship between Lokenath 104 826 and his daughters. 50 lacs by way of provision for debenture redemption fund. 2,50,000 for the debenture redemption fund the claim to have Rs. When once it is conceded that the Act serves the national interest, I find it not possible to hold that the restrictions are unreasonable or excessive.
The appellant had issued debentures of the value of Rs. It however was Protection of Life and Liberty Lawyer in Chandigarh the opinion that a reasonable provision for redemption fund should be allowed as a prior charge and actually allowed the sum of Rs. 50 lacs for the same and it arose under the following circumstances. In addition to these various sums allowed to the appellant by way of prior charges against the gross profits earned during the accounting year the Tribunal also allowed to the appellant Rs.
1,50,000, for 1952-53 Rs. The Tribunal pointed out that when the appellant had in its accounts appropriated Rs. If there was no statutory compulsion on the owners of factories to supply a reasonable fraction of the sugar produced in their factories, the export agency would not get the requisite quantity of sugar for export. 3,50,000 as the annual sum to be set apart, though as a matter of fact Anticipatory Bail Advocate in Chandigarh the balance-sheet only a provision of Rs.
The other respondent in this appeal, presumably another unsuccessful candidate at the election, had been made a party to the petition but he never appeared at any stage -ID the 1957 General Elections the appellant was declared elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. It is common case that at present the export trade in sugar ends in loss; but it cannot be predicated that it will be a chronic feature and there will not come a time when the export trade in sugar will earn profits.
If there was no provision imposing a penal cess on defaulters, there would be no sanction to compel them to deliver their quota of sugar. In so far as 7 more years were left before the due date for redemption the Lawyer in Chandigarh appellant claimed Rs. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended before us that even apart from s. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J.