BINOD MILLS CO. LTD, UJJAIN (M.P.) versus SURESH CHANDRA MAHAVEER PRASAD MANTRI, BOMBAY

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 06-05-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
BINOD MILLS CO. LTD., UJJAIN (M.P.) 
v. 
SURESH CHANDRA MAHA VEER PRASAD 
MANTRI, BOMBAY 
MAY 6, 1987 
[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
\ 
Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhi-
niyam, 1978: ss. 3 and 5-Relief Undertakings-Suspension of decrees 
against-Object and Scope of-Execution whether barred-Whether in 
conflict with ss. 40 or 42 C.P. C. 
Words and Phrases: Expression 'other legal proceedings'-
Whether includes execution petitions. 
A 
B 
c 
Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 
1972/Sick Textile Undertakings Nationalisation Act, 1974: Sick Units-
D 
Rescue of-Concern expressed at loss Government incurs-Necessity 
for Government to evolve more acceptable policy-Help labour and 
l'flodernise industry. 
Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh 
Upbandb) Adbiniyam, 1978 ·provides for the declaration of a State 
E 
industrial undertaking as a relief undertaking and s. 5 for suspension of 
suits or other legal proceedings against such relief undertakings and 
bars institution or commencement of suits or other legal proceedings 
against such an industrial undertaking during the period in which it 
remains a relief undertaking notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, 
contract, instrument, decree, order, award, or settlement. 
F 
The appellant, a textile undertaking at Ujjain, M.P. was declared 
a 'relief undertaking' by notification dated 15.11.1980 issued by the 
State Government under s. 3 of the Act and the time extended by 
subsequent orders till 15.11.1987. The respondent filed a summary suit 
against the appellant in the Bombay High Court for a certain sum with 
interest and costs, which was decreed ex-parte. He then got the decree G 
transferred for execution to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain, 
Madhya Pradesh on 26.9.1986. The appellant resisted execution on 
the ground of the bar contained in s. 5 of the Act. The respondent while 
admitting that the appellant was a relief undertaking contended that the 
District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain any objection to the 
execution of the decree validly passed by the High Court as it could not 
H 
247 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
go behind the decree, and the decree mandated execution on its terms. 
The District Judge held that the appellant could not take 
advantage of the notifications under the Act because the rights and 
liabilities of the parties had to be determined by the transferee court in 
accordance with the substantive law bearing on the question in the 
B · ccourt .that pessed.tlie decree:, and-Ola! the -uiio11. o( tlte decr~could,., 
not be challenged before the transferee court unless it was shown that 
the transferor court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree. The High 
Court took the view that the executing court could not go behind the 
decree even if it was erroneous on law or on facts and after considering 
the effect of s. 5 on the general law governing decrees and their execu· 
tion as provided in the Civil Procedure Code held that there was no bar 
C against execution of the decree,. and consequently rejected the revision 
and affirmed the order of the District Judge. 
In this appeal by special leave.it was contended for the respondent 
that the expression 'other legal proceedings' would not take in execu· 
D tion proceedings and the execution court could not, therefore, refuse to 
execute a valid decree, that if such a wide construction was given to that 
expression institution of even claims of workers under the Industrial 
Disputes Act and other similar beneficial legislation would be barred, 
that the execution court could not, while executing decrees, adopt a 
procedure under any special law available in the State in which the 
execution court was situate in relation to decrees obtained outside the 
E States, and finally that s. 5 could not apply to ;>Ost-notification 
liabilities. 
Allowing the ap'peal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The High Court was in error in alloMng execution to 
F proceed. It has completely overlooked the purpose of the Madhya 
Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978 
and the limited period of operation of s. 5. The bar contained in the 
section by way of suspension of suits or other legal proceedings against 
relief undertakings is an absolute one for the period contemplated in the 
Act. [263C; 253B; 262F] 
G 
2. The section is not happily worded. What it intends to convey if 
··~ 
the words are re-arranged, would be: "

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.