9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition and the appeal. Indore Textiles Ltd. was a public limited company whose shares were purchased by one Ajit Kumar Singh Kasliwal (petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition) on February 10, 1977. It appears that the undertaking of the company had been closed for some time and the Central Government had appointed a committee to investigate into its affairs. After the receipt of the report, the Central Government, by an order dated August 12, 1977, took over the management of the textile mill. This order was passed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 18AA(1)(b) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the IDR Act"). The said order was challenged with the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated to the petitioner. By an amendment in the pending writ petition this order of May 22, 1982, was also allowed to be challenged. Ultimately, the High Court by its judgment dated December 17, 1982, dismissed the writ petition. Civil Appeal No. 6815 of 1983 which is also being disposed of by this judgment, arises by way of special leave having been granted against the judgment dated December 17, 1982. The original order under section 18AA of the IDR Act was to have effect for a period of five years from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. This period was subsequently extended from time to time. In the present case, the extended period of the last extension was up to and including February 11, 1986. It may here be notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980 SC 1955 ; [1980] 4 SCC 136 and Mahesh Kumar Saharia v. State of Nagaland [1997] 8 SCC 176 ; [1998] 92 Comp Cas 96 to mention only two. It was, however, submitted by Shri Sanghi that there was no existing public purpose for which the acquisition could have been made. It was contended that the object of the Act is clearly reflected in the preamble which shows that the undertaking was being acquired with a view to secure its proper management. Inasmuch as the management of the undertaking had already been taken over by the Central Government, under the order passed under section 18AA of the IDR Act, Shri Sanghi submitted that the reason for securing proper management did not exist and, therefore, the Act could not have been passed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a result of the acquisition of the undertaking it is but obvious that its management would henceforth vest with the State Government and it is for this reason that provisions with regard thereto are contained in Chapter IV of the said Adhiniyam. It was faintly suggested that when the IDR Act contains the power to take over the management of an undertaking there can be no acquisition by the said Act which would have the same effect, i.e., taking over of the management of the undertaking. This question is no longer res integra. There was a similar provision like the one contained in Chapter TV of the Adhiniyam which existed in the U.P. Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1971, which enabled the management of the acquired undertakings being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80] 4 SCC 136, nor in Mahesh Kumar Saharia v. State of Nagaland [1997] 8 SCC 176 ; [1998] 92 Comp Cas 96 had the management been taken over by the Central Government under the IDR Act before the respective Acquisition Acts had been passed. He submitted that the present case is clearly distinguishable because as on the date of issuance of the Ordinance, the management was with the Central Government. In our opinion this distinction, if at all, makes no difference to the merits of the case because as held in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1955 ; [1980] 4 SCC 136 and Mahesh Kumar Saharia v. State of Nagaland [1997] 8 SCC 176 ; [1998] 92 Comp Cas 96 , the provision for taking over of the undertaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 5 in particular on the ground that the liability for the period after August 12, 1977, is sought to be fastened on the petitioners. It is admitted that so far no demand under section 5 has been raised. Even though Shri K.N. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, stated that the liabilities between August 12, 1977, and February 10, 1986, will be borne by the State, we do not think it is necessary or appropriate, in the absence of necessary pleadings, to adjudicate on this aspect. We, however, do hope and expect that the Government will not act unfairly and whenever necessary it will pass appropriate orders, which power it has under section 32 of the Act, to remove any difficulty in this regard. Inasmuch as the validity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
