9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 5th July, 1983 in the bank account of the defendant at Bombay. The defendant issued a deposit receipt for the aforesaid amount dated 11.7.1983. The aforesaid deposit receipt contained an endorsement to the effect 'Subject to Anand jurisdiction'. The date of maturity of the aforesaid amount was to expire on 3.10.1983. According to the plaintiff the defendant failed to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 and requested the plaintiff to continue the said deposit till the end of November, 1983 and for that purpose, handed over to the plaintiff 5 post dated cheques of Rs. 2,00,000 each drawn on a Bombay bank. The defendant had also issued a cheque dated 30th November, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 22,288.32 by way of interest on the said amount of Rs. 10,00,000. This cheque was also drawn in favour of the plaintiff payable in Bombay. The plaintiff submitted the aforesaid 5cheques for payment but the same were dishonored for the reason "insufficient funds". The plaintiff in these circumstances filed a summary suit against the defendant for Rs. 10,00,000 as principal and interest Ca 19% per annum with 90 days rests. The defendant in the written statement submitted that the fixed deposit receipt co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Single Judge further held that the plaintiff in the suit had put its claim not only on the basis of the deposit receipt but had been cautious enough to also. base its claim on the 5 post dated cheques which were admittedly payable in Bombay. The Learned Single Judge under issue No.2 held that the claim for compound interest cannot be sustained and the said issue was answered in the negative. The Learned Single Judge under issue No. 3 held that as the plaintiff has now restricted the cause of action to the 5 post dated cheques, the claim for interest can only arise from the dates on which those cheques become due and payable. The Learned Single Judge as such passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 along with interest thereon @ 19% per annum, on a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from 23rd November, 1983, on a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from 24th November, 1983, on a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from 25th November, 1983 and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from 29th November, 1983 and on the last sum of Rs. 2,00,000 from 30th November, 1983. On an appeal filed by the defendant a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 24th October, 1991 held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the defendant at the Bank of Baroda, Nariman Point, Bombay. On 11.7.1983 the defendant issued a deposit receipt and the said deposit receipt contained an endorsement of 'Subject to Anand Jurisdiction'. The date of maturity was mentioned as 3.10.1983. It is also not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 along with interest was not paid on the due date and the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 19.10.1983 stating therein that in view of certain problems they were not in a position to repay the deposit amount on the due date and thereby requested the plaintiff to allow the defendant to keep the deposit till the end of November, 1983 with interest at 19% per annum on the delayed payment as well. The defendant also issued the five post dated cheques for Rs. 2,00,000 each drawn on Bank of Baroda, Nariman Point, Bombay dated 23rd, 24th, 25th, 29th and 30th November, 1983 respectively. It is also an admitted position that the leave to defend the suit was obtained by the defendant from the Bombay High Court itself The Learned Division Bench in our opinion was clearly wrong in holding that the suit was not based on the five post dated cheques and that the Bombay High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plaintiff in case such objection relating to jurisdiction is to be maintained as allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. We may also consider the effect of the endorsement 'Subject to Anand jurisdiction' made on the deposit receipt issued by the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be disputed that the cause of action had arisen at Bombay as the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 itself was paid through a cheque of the Bank at Bombay and the same was deposited in the Bank account of the defendant in the Bank of Baroda at Nariman Point Bombay. The five post dated cheques were also issued by the defendants being payable to the plaintiff at Bombay. The endorsement 'Subject to Anand jurisdiction' has been made unilaterally by the defendant while issuing the deposit receipt. The endorsement 'Subject to Anand jurisdiction' does not contain the ouster clause using the words like 'alone', 'only', 'exclusive' and the like. Thus the maxim 'expression unius est excusio alterius' cannot be applied under the facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be held that merely because the deposit receipt contained the endorsement 'Subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that :- (a)in relation to any relief undertaking and in respect of the period for which the relief undertaking continues as such under sub-sec. (2) of Section 3- (i)all or any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act or any provisions thereof shall not apply (and such relief undertaking shall be exempt therefrom), or shall, if so directed, by the State Government, be applied with such modifications (which do not however affect the policy of the said laws) as may be specified in the notification; (ii)all or any of the agreements, settlements, awards or standing orders made under any of the laws in the Schedule to this Act, which may be applicable to the undertaking immediately before it was acquired or taken over by the State Government or before any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance was provided to it by, or with the approval of, the State Government, for being run as a relief undertaking, shall be suspended in operation, or shall, if so directed by the State Government, be applied with such modifications as may be specified in the notification; (iii)rights, privileges, obligations and liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said action inter alia on the ground that the Bihar Legislature was not competent to make a law with respect to a Trust whose properties are situated not only in Bihar but also in other States in India. It was argued that the Bihar Legislature has no extra-territorial jurisdiction and since its attempt to control and regulate the activities of the trust is bound to have effect outside the State of Bihar, the Act in question must be held to be outside the legislative competence of that Legislature. The Constitution Bench which decided Charusila Dasi posed the questioned arising before it in the following words: "The question, therefore, narrows down to this: in so legislating, has it power to affect trust property which may be outside Bihar but which appertains to the trust situate in Bihar." The question was answered in the following words: "In our opinion, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative. It is to be remembered that with regard to an interest under a trust the beneficiaries only right is to have the trust duly administered according to the terms and this right can normally be enforced only at the place where the trust or religious institution is situate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slature was competent to enact the said law and since the Bihar Act expressly excluded the application of Section 92 C.P.C., the scheme framed by the Calcutta High Court with respect to the said temple ceased to the operative with the coming into force of the Bihar Act. The reasoning in this decision closely follows the reasoning in Charusila Dasi. In Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Punjab University & Anr., I.L.R. (1981) 1 Punjab & Haryana 624 reliance had been placed on a decision of this Court in Inderjit C. Parekh & Ors. v. B.K Bhau & Anr., AIR (1974) SC. 1183 the question for consideration was whether the prosecution against the appellants under paragraph 76(a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 is liable to be stayed by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on May 6, 1972 issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Act. While dealing with the said question it was held "the obligations and liabilities of these persons is not comprehended within the words of Subs.(4) of Clause (a) of Section 4(1) shows that the power of the State Government is itself restricted to giving directions referred to in sub-clause (iv). "in relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings are likely to have an adverse impact upon the undertaking adverse impact in the sense that it disables the undertaking being run as an employment relief undertaking. Mr. Salve, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, on the other hand, submits that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions has no application herein and that so long as no proceedings are taken and no execution is levied in the State of Gujarat or against the properties of the defendant situated in the State of Gujarat, the bar contained in the Act does not come into play. He relies upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in State Bank of India v. Jaipur Udyog and submits that the same has been approved by this Court in Binod Mills Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra, [1987] 3 SCC 99 at 108. The legislature of a State is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the State [Article 245(1). It has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Subject to any law made by the Parliament, the State legislature can also make a law with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-Ill. The Bombay Act is relatable to entry 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liament enacted 'The Sick Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985'. Incidently, it may be mentioned that according to the respondent company, a rehabilitation scheme has been sanctioned by the B.I.F.R. for the respondent company on January 21, 1992 but the inter-corporate depositors are said to have been kept out of the scheme as framed by I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., the operating agency. The result of the above discussion is that the Gujarat Legislature is not competent to regulate, modify or extinguish the obligations and liabilities incurred by a 'relief undertaking' (declared as such under Section 3 of the Bombay Act) outside the State of Gujarat nor can it suspend or stay the suit or other proceedings relating to such obligations and liabilities. Section 4(1)(a)(iv) is not effective to suspend the plaintiff-appellant's right to money nor can it operate to stay the proceedings in the present suit in the Bombay Court. If and when any execution is levied within the State of Gujarat and/or against the properties of the relief undertaking situated within the State of Gujarat, they can be interdicted by the said notification read with Section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Act, as held by this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
