Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1344 - SC - Indian LawsAuthorized occupant or not - filing of suit by the Respondents for the enforcement of their alleged rights in respect of the subject premises - whether the subject premises can be said to be an asset of the SSML vested with the State? HELD THAT:- In National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills Ltd. and Othrs. [1986 (4) TMI 349 - SUPREME COURT], this Court noticed the stand taken by parties with regard to property in question. The said case related to the very same mill SSML. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay on a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by SSML while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 held that the surplus land appurtenant to the mill was not an 'asset in relation to the textile undertaking' within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and directed the Central Government to restore the possession of the said land to the Company. The agreement to sell relied upon by Respondent No. 1 itself contains Clause 1(d), 2, 3, 6 etc. which mandates the execution of registered sale-deed or conveyance deed within three years. However, the same was never done. A suit for specific performance was filed by Respondent No. 1 before Bombay High Court against SSML 25 years after unregistered agreement to sell dated 25th March, 1975, thereby, acknowledging that there was no registered document of title with Respondent No. 1. The said suit is still pending - thus, all other rights and interests in or arising out of such property as were existing immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession, power or control of the textile company in relation to the said undertaking vested with the Central Government and by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section (3) stood transferred to, and vested in, the National Textile Corporation. Liability if any of the owner of a textile undertaking i.e. SSML of any period to the appointed day is liability of such owner (SSML) and can be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the National Textile Corporation in view of Section 5(1) of 1995 Act. The First Schedule of the 1995 Act provides the amount which the Central Government has to pay to the owner of every textile undertaking for the transfer and vesting of such undertaking to it. This provision cannot be the starting point of investigation as to which amount relates to which property or as a guide to construction - Therefore, it is clear that the property in question stood vested in the Central Government and, in turn, stood transferred and vested with National Textile Corporation Under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of 1995 Act. Even if it is admitted that Respondent No. 1 has acted on the agreement to sell and has paid the entire consideration, it cannot be a ground to hold that Respondent No. 1 is authorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act. Thus, the Division Bench of the High Court failed to analyze the provisions correctly and wrongly presumed that the property in question has been sold to the Textile Undertaking prior to the commencement of 1983 Act. The Court wrongly relied on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act to hold that Respondent No. 1 has valid defence available under the said provision and hence erred in holding that Respondent No. 1 is an authorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the 1971 Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|