TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in the present proceedings. We are satisfied that in view of categorical decision of this Court in Doypack (1988 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), rejection of subsequent application filed by the appellant for clarification/modification, direction to approach the Civil Court, initiation of proceedings under the PP Act which ended in dismissal, dismissal of complaint under Section 27 of the Swadeshi Act, were passed by various courts which undoubtedly go against the claim and stand of the appellant. It is also brought to our notice by the newly impleaded parties that they had purchased the said property in a bona fide manner with clean title of the property vested in the SCMCL, therefore, they are entitled for the same. It is made clear that we have not expressed any thing about the said issue. - Decided against the appellant / petitioner. - Civil Appeal No. 4818 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4706 of 2006), Civil Appeal No. 4819 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4773 of 2006) - - - Dated:- 1-7-2013 - P. Sathasivam And Jagdish Singh Khehar,JJ. JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) These appeals are directed against the final j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the same including the Swadeshi House and Shrubbery -the residence of the Secretary of the SCMCL. (d) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment with regard to the validity and legality of the order of takeover, Swadeshi Cotton Mills, National Textile Corporation and Union of India preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 1629, 1857 and 2087 of 1979 respectively before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 13.01.1981 in Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 664 held the said takeover invalid on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the SCMCL before the takeover. (e) On 19.04.1986, the Central Government promulgated the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1986. Thereafter, on 30.05.1986, the said ordinance was replaced by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (in short the Swadeshi Act ). As per Section 3 of the Swadeshi Act, every textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood transferred and vested with the Central Government. The transferred undertakings were further transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got dismissed in view of the ruling given in Doypack (supra) that only Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block vested with the Central Government. (j) Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.1993, the NTC filed Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1993 before the Session Judge, Kanpur which also got dismissed vide order dated 30.10.1993 holding that the NTC failed to prove beyond doubt that the said Bungalow vested with Central Government with a direction to move the appropriate court in terms of the order dated 03.08.1989. (k) Aggrieved by the same, the NTC preferred Writ Petition No. 25090 of 1994 before the High Court of Allahabad. In the meantime, the NTC filed Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2005 in Transfer Case No. 14 of 1987 before this Court alleging violation of the judgment in Doypack (supra) but the same got dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2006 on the ground of omission to disclose about the instant proceedings. Vide order dated 25.11.2005, the High Court dismissed the above said writ petition. (l) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave. SLP (Civil) No. 4773 of 2006 (m) On 26.10.1989, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and adjacent land and because of Section 3 of the Swadeshi Act, every textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood transferred and vested with the Central Government and further transferred and vested in the NTC. Among the properties owned by the SCMCL, now we are concerned only about the ownership of Bungalow No.2. 6) On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the properties of SCMCL, Kanpur, vested with the Central Government, did not include Bungalow No.2 as the same was always the property of the SCMCL and not of its Kanpur Mills. It is their assertion that the land on which the SCMCL is constructed was purchased in the year 1921 and the building was constructed soon thereafter. The said land and house were not purchased/constructed from the profits generated by the SCMCL, Kanpur but from the shareholders fund(s) arranged otherwise. It is also their assertion that the said land, viz., Bungalow No.2, was never vested in the appellant as decided by this Court in Doypack (supra). It is also brought to our notice by the respondents that Bungalow Nos. 1 and 2 have been recorded by the Kanpur Municipality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forming part of, any of the textile undertaking; or shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 8) Learned ASG has brought to our notice that several proceedings were instituted by the parties as a result of the acquisition of textile undertakings of the SCMCL. Two significant proceedings are: (1) A civil suit instituted by one Mukesh Bhasin on 26.02.1987 before the High Court of Delhi. In paragraph 3 (xix) of the said suit, the appellant made the following submissions: (xix) The Swadeshi House in an integral part of the Kanpur Undertaking and includes substantial area of land and building. The plaintiff reasonably and bona fide believes that the said House was built in 1921 as a part of the textile undertaking of defendant No.3 for the benefit and use of its business, which at that time consisted only of the Kanpur Textile Undertaking. In the said suit, the following prayer was sought: (a) that the defendant No.1 is the rightful owner of 10 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Limited, held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, vest in the Central Government under Section 3 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The other subsidiary question is whether the immovable properties, namely the bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block, Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested in the Government. The question as to one more property known as Shrubbery property whether it has been taken over or not is still to be argued and is not covered by this judgment. 10) From the above, the questions which formed the subject matter of Doypack (supra) were as under: (a) Whether equity shares in the two companies, i.e., 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Limited and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, vest in the Central Government under Section 3 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Understandings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). (b) Whether the immovable properties, namely, the Bungalow No.1 and the Administrative Block, Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the contemnors therein have sold Bungalow No. 2 to one Kanpur Builders Ltd., they have violated the judgment in Doypack (supra) and, therefore, they are liable to be punished for contempt. The Director of the said Kanpur Builders Ltd. was also impleaded as Contemnor No. 3 in the said contempt petition. By order dated 03.02.2006, this Court, dismissed the said contempt petition. After several rounds of litigation, as discussed in the paragraphs (supra), the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 25090 of 1994 before the High Court of Allahabad. By judgment dated 25.11.2005, learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein holding that under Section 27 of Act 30 of 1986 a complaint could only have been filed by the appellant if the property had vested in them. It was further held by the High Court that, that a complaint under Section 27 of Act 30 of 1986 could only have been filed by the petitioner if the title of the property in dispute was clearly in their favour. Both the Courts below have correctly assessed the facts and circumstances of the case and have rightly come to the conclusion that in the absence of having any clear title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
