http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: JANKI SUGAR MILLS & CO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF MEERUT DIVISION, MEERUT

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/12/1978

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1979 AIR  616            1979 SCR  (2) 778  1979 SCC  (1) 524

ACT:      "Bonded  Cane",   meaning  of,-True   effect   of   the provisions of  sub-clauses (2)  and (3) of cl. 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply  and Purchase  Order, 1954, issued under s. 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953.

HEADNOTE:      The Government  of India  notified  its  decision  that certain deductions  in the  minimum cane price, on the basis of recovery  of sugar  from sugarcane  will  be  allowed  to sugarcane factories  in U.P. on the cane supplied to them on and after  May 1,  1955 but  that  the  deductions  will  be allowed only  on "unbonded cane" crushed by each factory and not on  "bonded cane",  the latter of which shall have to be purchased by  each factory at the minimum cane price already fixed for the season. In exercise of the powers delegated to him under  s. 3  of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Cane Commissioner  U.P. issued  a Notification  on June,  1, 1955, whereunder  "the producers  of  sugar  by  vacuum  pan process were  allowed to make deductions as specified in the Schedule thereto from the minimum price of per maund of cane fixed for  the season  1954-55 in  respect of  the  unbonded sugarcane crushed on and after May 1, 1955.      The   appellant   firm   taking   advantage   of   this Notification granting  concession in the minimum price, made payment to  Laskar Co-operative  Cane Development Union Ltd; after making  deductions in  respect  of  2  lac  maunds  of sugarcane supplied  to it,  under an  agreement entered into pursuant to the offer made to it on March 22, 1955. However, on December 21, 1955 the Cane Commissioner issued a Recovery Certificate under  Sections 17  and  18  of  U.P.  Sugarcane (Regulation of  Supply and  Purchase) Act,  1953 against the appellant firm  for a  sum of Rs. 53,879.10 being the amount deducted by  the appellant  firm while  making  payments  to Laskar Co-operative Union. On a challenge to legality of the Recovery Certificate,  the dispute  was referred to the sole arbitrator, the  District Cane Officer under Rule 108 of the U.P. Sugarcane  (Regulation of  Supply and  Purchase) Rules, 1954. The  arbitrator found that the supply of sugarcane was "bonded cane" and therefore gave an award that the appellant was not entitled to the concession and was liable to pay the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

minimum price therefor.      An appeal  to the  Divisional Commissioner  having been dismissed, the  appellant-firm filed  a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High  Court which  also was  rejected.  A  further special appeal  also proving unsuccessful the appellant firm appealed to  the Supreme Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: 1.  Neither the expression "bonded sugarcane" nor "unbonded sugar cane" has been defined either in the Statute or in  the U.P.  Sugarcane Supply  and Purchase Order, 1954. Having regard to the ordinary dictionary 779 meaning of  the said  expressions,  the  expression  "bonded sugarcane" must  mean Sugar  Cane secured by a bond or deed. [783 G-H, 784 A]      2. Under  the Notification  of  the  Cane  Commissioner dated June 1, 1955 certain deductions from the minimum price per maund  of cane  fixed for  the season  1954-55 had  been notified in  respect of  the "unbonded sugarcane" crushed on or after  May 1,  1955. In  other words,  the concession  is granted in  respect of  the supply of ’unbonded sugarcane in contradistinction with supply of ’bonded sugarcane. There is nothing in  the Notification  to suggest that any particular bond or a bond in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply  and Purchase  Order 1954  was intended and therefore supply  of bonded  sugarcane’ would mean supply of sugarcane which  has been  secured by a bond or an agreement and such supply will not be entitled to the concession. On a plain reading of the Notification in question, therefore, it will appear clear that since the supply of two lac maunds of sugarcane made by respondent no. 4 to the appellant-firm had been secured  by the agreement that was entered into between the parties  on May  4, 1955 the said supply will have to be regarded as  supply of  "bonded sugarcane"  and as  such the appellant-firm was  not entitled  to the  concession in  the minimum price  payable in  respect thereof to respondent no. 4, Laskar Co-operative Cane Development Union. [784 B-E]      3. On a fair reading of the sub-cls. (2) and (3) of cl. 3 of  the Order two or there things become at once clear. In the first  place sub-cl.  (2) uses  the expression ’may’ and provides that  a cane-grower  or  cane-growers’  cooperative Society may  within  14  days  of  the  issue  of  an  order reserving an  area for a factory make an offer to supply the cane grown  in the  reserved area  to the  factory. That the period of  14  days  mentioned  in  this  subclause  is  not imperative or mandatory is also clear from sub-cl. (4) which confers power  upon the Cane Commissioner to extend the date for making  offer in respect of any reserved area. Secondly, sub-cl. (3)  uses the  expression ’shall’ indicating that an imperative obligation is cast upon the factory to accept the offer within  14 days from the receipt of the offer. Reading the two  sub-clauses together,  it becomes  clear that  if a cane-grower or  cane-growers’ Co-operative  Society makes an offer  within  14  days  mentioned  in  sub-cl.  (2)  it  is obligatory upon  the occupier  of the factory to accept that offer within  14 days of the receipt of the offer; this only means that  if the  offer is  made by  cane-grower or  cane- growers’ Co-operative Society beyond the period specified in sub-cl. (2)  or the extended time under sub-cl. (4) it would not be  obligatory but  optional for  the  occupier  of  the factory to  accept the  said offer  but if  such offer  made beyond the  prescribed or extended period is accepted by the occupier of  the factory  a  binding  agreement  comes  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

existence  between   the  parties   and  sugarcane  supplied thereunder would  be bonded  sugarcane’, more  so  when  the agreement is  entered into  in the  prescribed form.  Merely because the  offer from the cane-grower or cane-growers’ Co- operative Society  emanates after  the expiry  of the period mentioned in  sub-cl. (2)  it does not mean that the parties are preventive  from entering  in to  an  agreement  in  the prescribed form  and if  they do,  as was the case here, the sugar cane supplied there-under would be ’bonded sugarcane’. Therefore, considering  the question  in the context of sub- cl. (2)  and sub-cl.  (3) of  the U.P.  sugarcane supply and Purchase  Order   1954,  also  the  appellant-firm  was  not entitled  to   the  benefit   of  the   Cane  Commissioner’s Notification dated June 1, 780      4. The  contention that sugarcane supplied by the cane- growers  or  cane-growers’  Co-operative  Society  could  be regarded  as   "bonded  sugarcane"  only  if  offer  of  the Canegrower or  the Canegrowers Co-operative Society emanates within the  period prescribed by sub-clause (2) and the same is accepted  by the occupier within the period prescribed by sub-cl. (3) is not correct. [786 D-F]      5. The  true effect  of sub-clauses  (2) and  (3)  read together is  that the compulsion or obligation to accept the offer on the part of the occupier of the factory arises only when the  offer is  made by the cane-grower or Cane-growers’ Co-operative Society  within the  time prescribed by sub-cl. (2) or  the extended time under sub-cl. (4) but if the offer is made after the   expiry of that period it is optional for the factory  occupier to accept it or not but in cases where he  accepts  such  offer  a  binding  agreement  comes  into existence, and  the sugarcane  supplied  thereunder  becomes "bonded sugarcane". [786 E-M].      6. In the instant case the offer of additional quantity of two  lac maunds  of sugarcane  was undoubtedly  made long after the  expiry of  the period of sub-cl. (2) but the same was accepted  by the  appellant-firm and a binding agreement came into existence and what is more a binding agreement was executed by  the parties in the prescribed Form ’C’. Further the conduct  on the  part of the appellant-firm in referring the dispute  to arbitration and filing an appeal against the arbitrator’s award  under the  relevant Rules  clearly shows that the  parties, particularly  the appellant-firm, treated the agreement dated May 4, 1955 as one under the Act and the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954. [786 F-H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1083 of 1969.      Appeal from  the Judgment  and Order dated 5-12-1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 1068 of 1967.      J. P. Goyal and Sobhagmal Jain for the Appellant.      G. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for Respondents 1-3.      Yogeshwar Prashad  and Mrs. S. Bagga for Respondent No. 4.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      TULZAPURKAR, J.  This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court on December 5,  1967 in  Special Appeal  No. 1068  of 1967  and raises a short question whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit  of  certain  concessions  (deductions)  in  the minimum price notified by the Cane Commissioner in his order issued on June 1, 1955 ?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

    The appellant  (Shri Janki  Sugar Mills & Company) is a partnership firm  carrying on  the business of manufacturing sugar. By an order passed on November 1, 1954 under s. 15 of the Uttar  Pradesh Sugar  Cane  (Regulation  of  Supply  and Purchase) Act  1953, the  Cane Commissioner reserved certain sugarcane centres for the appellant’s sugar 781 factory. On  November 12,  1954 (i.e.  within 14 days of the reservation of  the sugarcane  centres) the respondent No. 4 (Laskar Co-operative  Cane Development  Union Ltd.)  made an offer for  the 1954-55  crushing season  for the supply of 6 lac maunds of sugarcane out of a total estimated yield of 12 lac maunds of sugarcane from certain centres. This offer was accepted by  the appellant-firm  on November  27, 1954 (i.e. within 14 days of the receipt of the offer) and an agreement in the  prescribed Form ’C’ was duly executed on February 9, 1955. It  contained the  usual term  that the appellant-firm will pay  for the  sugarcane supplied  to it "at the minimum price notified by the Government subject to such deductions, if any,  as may  be notified  by the Government from time to time". On  March 22,  1955 the respondent No. 4 made another offer for  supplying additional  quantity of 2 lac maunds of sugarcane  to  the  appellant-firm,  which  offer  was  also accepted on  May  4,  1955  and  a  composite  agreement  in prescribed Form  ’C’ was  entered into  on that very day for the supply  of 8  lac maunds  of sugarcane (inclusive of the initial 6  lac maunds).  This agreement  also contained  the usual term  with regard  to the  payment being  made "at the minimum price  subject to such deductions as may be notified by the  Government from time to time". By a Press Note dated May 23,  1955 the  Government of India notified its decision that certain  deductions in  the minimum  cane price, on the basis of  recovery of  sugar from sugarcane, will be allowed to sugarcane factories in Uttar Pradesh on the cane supplied to them  on and  after May  1, 1955  but that the deductions will be  allowed only  on "unbonded  cane" crushed  by  each factory and  not on "bonded cane", the latter of which shall have to  be purchased  by each  factory at  the minimum cane price already  fixed for  the season.  In  exercise  of  the powers under  s. 3  of the  Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (delegated to  him  by  the  Government  of  India  under  a Notification dated  April 25,  1955), the Cane Commissioner, Uttar  Pradesh   issued  a  Notification  on  June  1,  1955 whereunder "the  producers of  sugar by  vacuum pan  process were allowed to make deductions as specified in the Schedule thereto from  the minimum  price of  per maund of cane fixed for the  season 1954-55 in respect of the unbonded sugarcane crushed on and after May 1, 1955". The appellant-firm taking advantage of  this Notification  granting concessions in the minimum price,  made payments  to  Respondent  No.  4  after making deductions  in respect  of  the  two  lac  maunds  of sugarcane supplied  to it,  in respect whereof the offer had been made  to it  on March  22, 1955.  However,  a  Recovery Certificate under  ss. 17 and 18 of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Cane (Regulation of  Supply and  Purchase) Act,  1953 against the appellant firm  for a  sum  of  Rs.  53,878/10/-  being  the amounts deducted by the 782 appellant-firm while  making payments  to Respondent  No. 4. The appellant-firm  disputed the  legality of  the  Recovery Certificate on  the ground that it had the right to make the deductions in  view of  the Cane Commissioner’s Notification dated June  1, 1955.  The said  dispute was  referred by the Cane Commissioner  to the District Cane Officer, Bulandshahr as the  sole arbitrator under Rule 108 of the U.P. Sugarcane

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

(Regulation of  Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954. By his award dated May  30, 1962, the District Cane Officer held that the appellant-firm had wrongly made the deductions in respect of the supply  of two lac maunds of sugarcane which was "bonded cane" and  that the  appellant-firm was  liable to  pay  the minimum price therefor.      Aggrieved by  the award the appellant-firm preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Meerut under Rule 118 of the said Rules, but the appeal was dismissed on March 30, 1963. The  appellant-firm challenged  the  legality  of  the award of  the District  Cane Officer  as also  the appellate order of  the Divisional  Commissioner by  means of  a  writ Petition  in   the  Allahabad   High   Court   being   Civil Miscellaneous Writ  No. 2003  of 1963.  The  learned  Single Judge who  heard the writ petition dismissed the same by his judgment and order dated October 24, 1967. A further Special Appeal No. 1068 of 1967 carried by the appellant-firm to the Division Bench  of that  Court also  proved unsuccessful  on December 5,  1967. The  appellant-firm has come up in appeal to this Court.      The only  contention that  was urged by counsel for the appellant firm  before us in this appeal was that the supply of two  lac maunds  of sugarcane made by respondent No. 4 to the appellant-firm  was not  bonded sugarcane  at all and as such the  appellant-firm was  entitled  to  the  concessions (deductions) in the minimum price payable in respect thereof to respondent  No. 4  in view  of  the  Cane  Commissioner’s Notification  dated   June  1,  1955.  In  support  of  this contention counsel relied upon sub-cls. (2) and (3) of cl. 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1956 issued under s.  16 of  the Uttar  Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply &  Purchase) Act,  1953 and  it was  pointed out that under sub-cl.  (2) within  14 days of issue of the reserving certain areas for a factory a cane-grower or a Cane-growers’ Cooperative Society  has to  make an  offer to  supply  cane grown in  the reserved  area to  the occupier of the factory and under sub-cl. (3) it was obligatory upon the occupier of the factory  for which such area has been reserved to accept the same  within 14  days of  the receipt  of the  offer and enter into  an agreement  in the  prescribed form and it was urged that  unless such  offer was  made within  14 days  as prescribed 783 by sub-cl. (2) and was accepted within 14 days as prescribed by sub-cl.  (3) the supply of sugarcane thereunder could not be regarded  as supply  of bonded-sugarcane. Counsel pointed out that  the offer  of two  lac maunds  of sugarcane in the instant case  was made  by respondent  No. 4  long after the expiry of  14 days  from the issuance of the order reserving certain areas  for the  appellant firm’s  factory  and  that offer had  been accepted  not within the limit prescribed in sub-cl. (3)  and, therefore,  the sugarcane  so supplied  by respondent No.  4  to  the  appellant-firm  was  not  bonded sugarcane but ought to be classified as ’unbonded sugarcane’ and  as   such  the   appellant-firm  was  entitled  to  the concessions in  the  minimum  price  notified  in  the  Cane Commissioner’s Notification  dated  June  1,  1955.  It  was further pointed  out that  though under sub-cl. (4) of cl. 3 of the  U.P. Sugarcane  supply and Purchase Order, 1954, the Cane Commissioner  had the  power to  extend  the  date  for making offers  in respect  of any  reserved  area,  no  such extension had  been granted  by the Cane Commissioner in the instant case, and, therefore, the offer of two lac maunds of sugarcane which  was made  by respondent  No. 4 on March 22, 1955, long  after the expiry of 14 days from the issuance of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

the order  of the  Cane Commissioner  on  November  1,  1954 reserving certain  sugarcane  centres  for  the  appellant’s factory under  s. 15 of the Act, could not culminate into an agreement under the statute or the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase  Order,  1954,  that  the  agreement  entered  into between the  parties on  May 4,  1955 in respect of the said supply must  be regarded  as an  ordinary contract under the Indian Contract  Act and  that the  sugarcane supplied under such  ordinary   contract  must   be  regarded  as  unbonded sugarcane. In other words, the contention was that only such sugarcane as  would be  supplied by a cane-grower or a Cane- growers’ Cooperative  Society under  an  agreement  made  in strict compliance  of sub-cls.  (2) and  (3) of cl. 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane  Supply and  Purchase Order,  1954  could  be regarded as bonded sugarcane.      The question  raised in  the appeal  really turns  upon what  is   meant  by  the  expression  "unbonded  sugarcane" occurring in the Cane Commissioner’s Notification dated June 1, 1955 and the true effect of sub-cls. (2) and (3) of cl. 3 of the  U.P. Sugarcane  Supply and  Purchase Order, 1954. It must be stated, however, that neither the expression "bonded sugarcane" nor  "unbonded sugarcane" has been defined either in the  statute or in the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order 1954  and,  therefore,  regard  must  be  had  to  the ordinary dictionary  meaning of  the  said  expressions.  In Shorter Oxford  English Dictionary  the legal  and technical meaning of the expression ’ "bond" 784 is given  as "a deed by which the Obliger binds himself, his heirs, executors,  or assigns  to pay  a certain  sum to the obligee". In  Stroud’s Judicial  Dictionary (4th  Edn.)  the expression "bond"  is explained as: "an obligation by deed". It will thus be clear that the expression "bonded sugarcane" must mean  sugarcane secured  by a  bond or  deed. Under the Notification of  the Cane  Commissioner dated  June 1,  1955 certain deductions  from the minimum price per maund of cane fixed for the season 1954-55 had been notified in respect of the "unbonded sugarcane" crushed on or after May 1, 1955. In other words,  the concession  is granted  in respect  of the supply of  ’unbonded sugarcane’  in  contradistinction  with supply of  ’bonded  sugarcane’.  There  is  nothing  in  the Notification to  suggest that  any particular bond or a bond in accordance  with the  provisions of  the  U.P.  Sugarcane Supply and  Purchase Order  1954 was  intended and therefore supply of  ’bonded sugarcane’ would mean supply of sugarcane which has  been secured  by a  bond or an agreement and such supply will  not be  entitled to  the concession. On a plain reading of  the Notification in question, therefore, it will appear clear  that since  the supply  of two  lac maunds  of sugarcane made by respondent No. 4 to the appellant-firm had been secured  by the agreement that was entered into between the parties  on May  4, 1955 the said supply will have to be regarded as  supply of  "bonded sugarcane"  and as  such the appellant-firm was  not entitled  to the  concession in  the minimum price  payable in  respect thereof to respondent No. 4.      Considering the  question in the context of sub-cls.(2) and (3)  of cl.3  of the  U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order 1954  also  we  are  clearly  of  the  view  that  the appellant firm  was not  entitled to the benefit of the Cane Commissioner’s Notification  dated June  1, 1955.  For  this purpose it  will be  necessary to refer to s. 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation  of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and set out  Cl. 3  of the  U.P. Sugarcane  Supply and  Purchase Order, 1954.  Under  s.15(1)  of  the  Act  power  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

conferred upon  the Cane  Commissioner after  consulting the factory  and   the   cane-grower/Canegrowers’   Co-operative Society to  (a) reserve  any area  (hereinafter  called  the reserved area)  or, (b)  assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area) for the purpose of the supply of sugarcane to a  factory in  accordance with  the  provisions  of  s.16 during one  or more crushing seasons as may be specified. It was under  this provision  that the  Cane  Commissioner  has passed  order  dated  November  1,  1954  reserving  certain sugarcane centres (reserved area) for the appellant firm for the 1954-55 season. 785 Clause 3  of the  U.P. Sugarcane  Supply and  Purchase Order 1954 runs thus:           "3. Purchase  of cane  in reserved  areas.-(1) The      occupier of  a factory  shall estimate  or cause  to be      estimated by the 31st day of October or such later date      in a  crushing season  as, on an application being made      to the  Cane Commissioner by the occupier of a factory,      may be  fixed by the Cane Commissioner, the quantity of      cane with each grower enrolled in the Grower’s Register      and shall  on demand  submit the  estimate to  the Cane      Commissioner and the Collector.           (2) A  cane-grower or a Cane-growers’ Co-operative      Society may  within 14  days of  the issue  of an order      reserving an area for a factory, offer in Form A of the      Appendix, to supply cane grown in the reserved area, to      the occupier of the factory.           (3) The  occupier of the factory for which an area      has been  reserved, shall,  within fourteen days of the      receipt of  the offer enter into an agreement in Form B      or Form  C of the Appendix, with the Cane-grower or the      Canegrowers’ Cooperative  Society, as  the case may be,      in respect of the cane offered:           Provided that any purchase of cane made before the      execution of  the prescribed  agreement shall be deemed      to have been made in accordance with such agreement.           (4) The  Cane Commissioner  may, for reasons to be      recorded in  writing, extend the date for making offers      in respect of any reserved area.      On a  fair reading of the sub-cls.(2) & (3) of cl. 3 of the Order  two or  three things become at once clear. In the first  place   sub-cl.(2)  uses  the  expression  ’may’  and provides that  a cane-grower  or  Canegrowers’  Co-operative Society may  within  14  days  of  the  issue  of  an  order reserving an  area for a factory make an offer to supply the cane grown  in the  reserved area  to the  factory. That the period of  14 days  mentioned  in  this  sub-clause  is  not imperative or  mandatory is also clear from sub-cl.(4) which confers power  upon the Cane Commissioner to extend the date for making  offer in respect of any reserved area. Secondly, sub-cl.(3) uses  the expression  ’shall’ indicating  that an imperative obligation is cast upon the factory to accept the offer 786 within 14  days from  the receipt  of the offer. Reading the two sub-clauses  together, it  becomes clear that if a cane- grower or  Canegrowers’ Cooperative  Society makes  an offer within 14 days mentioned in sub-cl.(2) it is obligatory upon the occupier  of the  factory to accept that offer within 14 days of  the receipt  of the  offer, this only means that if the offer  is  made  by  the  cane-grower  or  Cane-growers’ Cooperative Society  beyond the  period  specified  in  sub- cl.(2) or the extended time under sub-cl.(4) it would not be obligatory but  optional for  the occupier of the factory to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

accept the  said offer  but if  such offer  made beyond  the prescribed or extended period is accepted by the occupier of the factory a binding agreement comes into existence between the parties  and  sugarcane  supplied  thereunder  would  be ’bonded sugarcane’,  more so  when the  agreement is entered into in  the prescribed  form. Merely because the offer from the  cane-grower   or  Cane-growers’   Co-operative  Society emanates after  the expiry  of the  period mentioned in sub- cl.(2) it  does not mean that the parties are prevented from entering into  an agreement  in the  prescribed form  and if they do  enter into  an agreement in the prescribed form, as was the  case here,  the sugarcane supplied thereunder would be ’bonded  sugarcane’. It  is not  possible to  accept  the contention  of   learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that sugarcane  supplied  by  the  cane-growers  or  Canegrowers’ Cooperative Society could be regarded as ’bonded Sugar Cane’ only if  offer of  the Cane-grower  or the  Cane-Growers’ Co operative Society  emanates within  the period prescribed by sub-cl.(2) and  the same  is accepted by the occupier within the period prescribed by sub-cl. (3). As stated earlier, the true effect  of sub-cls.  (2) and  (3) read together is that the compulsion or obligation to accept the offer on the part of the occupier of the factory arises only when the offer is made  by   the  cane-grower  or  Cane-growers’  Co-operative Society within  the time  prescribed by  sub-cl.(2)  or  the extended time  under sub-cl.(4)  but if  the offer  is  made after the  expiry of  that period  it is  optional  for  the factory occupier  to accept  it or not but in cases where he accepts such offer a binding agreement comes into existence, and  the   sugarcane  supplied  thereunder  becomes  "bonded sugarcane". In  the instant  case the  offer  of  additional quantity of two lac maunds of sugarcane was undoubtedly made long after  the expiry  of the  period of sub-cl.(2) but the same was  accepted  by  the  appellant-firm  and  a  binding agreement came  into existence  and  what  is  more  that  a binding  agreement  was  executed  by  the  parties  in  the prescribed Form  ’C’. Further the conduct on the part of the appellant-firm in  referring the  dispute to arbitration and filing an  appeal against  the arbitrator’s  award under the relevant Rules  clearly shows that the parties, particularly the appellant-firm, treated the agreement dated May 4, 1955 787 as one  under the  Act and  the U.P.  Sugarcane and purchase Order, 1954.      We are,  therefore, of  the view  that the  authorities below were  right in  coming to the conclusion that the said additional  supply   of  two  lac  maunds  of  sugarcane  by respondent No.4  to the  appellant-firm was  the  supply  of "bonded sugarcane"  and, therefore,  the appellant-firm  was not entitled  to the  benefit  of  the  Cane  Commissioner’s Notification dated  June 1,  1955. In  the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. V.D.K.                                     Appeal dismissed. 788