ORDER The question is whether the consignments of maize which were sent from outside the market area to the factory of the appellant in Phagwara were delivered at Phagwara. If the answer is in the affirmative the appellant must pay the market fee as per Rule 29 (c), which provided that if the delivery of the goods is made in the market area pursuant to an agreement of sale or purchase, market fee is payable in respect of such goods. The High Court has recorded a finding in the following terms : The learned counsel for the appellant then referred to the railway receipts for proving place of the consignor and these were subsequently endorsed in favour of the banks. The banks endorsed them in favour of the appellant. The payment for the said receipts was made by the appellant to the banks within the area of respondent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the goods were purchased by the appellant outside the notified area of the respondent. I do not find any substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and reject the same. No exception can be taken to this finding. The High Court was right in recording the finding that insofar as the railway receipts which were endorsed in favour of the appellant and payment in respect of which was made to the concerned bank within the market area at Phagwara could be said to have been delivered pursuant to the agreement of sale, within the meaning of Rule 29 (e). However, in regard to a few railway receipts the evidence shows that there was no such endorsement and it was not established that payment was made at Phagwara. So also in regard to purchases of American maize made from All India Starch and Chemical Associations, Bombay, the evidence clearly establishes that payment was made at Bombay. Under, the circumstances, the grievance of the appellant to this extent is justified. Having regard to the fact that the total amount of market fee levied on the appellant is only Rs 20,000, it is not practicable to make a remand in order to ascertain the facts in regard to the railway receipts in respect of which no payment was made in Phagwara. Having regard to the fact that the total amount of market fee levied on the appellant is only Rs 20,000, it is not practicable to make a remand in order to ascertain the facts in regard to the railway receipts in respect of which no payment was made in Phagwara. So also it would not be practicable to remand the matter to find out the quantity involved in the context of the purchases of American maize for which payment was made at Bombay. In order to avoid protracted and costly litigation in the context of the grievance on the aforesaid two counts, we believe the matter can be firstly resolved by giving some concession to the appellant on this score on an ad hoc basis instead of remanding the matter. In our opinion the ends of justice will be met if the decree passed against the appellant is modified by reducing the decretal amount from Rs 20,000 to Rs 15,000 under the circumstances. Learned counsel for both the sides have stated that this would be a fair and reasonable solution. We, therefore, allow the appeal partly to the aforesaid extent. If the decretal amount of Rs 20,000 has already been recovered, the respondents shall refund a sum of Rs 5000 to the appellant within six months. No order regarding costs. For Citation : 1987 (Supp) SCC 308.