LexCUSTODIAN OF TEXTILES UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY versus HALL & ANDERSON LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 2 S.C.R. 134 CUSTODIAN OF TEXTILES UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY v. HALL & ANDERPQN LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal 11Jo. 666 of 2011) ) JANUARY 17, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1995 - s.8 - Textiles Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, C · 1983 - Respondent-company had premises at Calcutta and textile undertaking in Bombay - Besides textile business, the company also had the business of letting out various portions of the Calcutta premises to different business organizations - Textile undertaking was taken over by the Government - D Whether the Calcutta premises also could be said to be taken over by the Government - Held, No, since the Calcutta premises was by no means related to the textile business - The premises in Calcutta did not form part of the textile undertaking nor was it appurtenant thereto - It was not shown E that for the purpose of determining total compensation (on nationalization of the textile undertaking), the premises at Calcutta was also included. Mis Hall & Anderson Ltd., incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, was running a departmental F ::;tore business on the premises in question (situated at Calcutta). Subsequently, in 1950, the company purchased a textile mill in Bombay from M/s. Madhusudan Mills Ltd. and commenced business of manufacturing and selling of cotton. In 1959, the name of G the company was changed to M/s Shree Madhusudan Mills Ltd., having its registered office at the premises in question. In 1976, the business of departmental store was stopped due to economic loss and the premises was let H 134 CUSTODIAN OF TEXTILES UNDERTAKING, BOMBAY 135 v. HALL & ANDERSON LTD. out on rent. In 1989, because of strike by workers of A textile mills, several mills suffered losses and It became difficult to run the business and therefore, the Government after having due deliberations with Reserve Bank of India and other authorities first came with the Ordlnanc.e and later on replaced It by the Textile 8 Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983. Respondent no.1 filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the provisions of the 1983 Act whereupon an injunction was granted by the High Court C restraining the appellant from interfering with the bank accounts relating to the property business as, well as textile undertaking business. Meanwhile, the Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1995 came into existence and the mills stood acquired and M/s Shree D Madhusudan Mills Ltd. was renamed as M/s Hall & Anderson on 11.2.1999. The High Court, ultimately, allowed the said writ petition holding that the premises in question was by no means related to the textile undertakings and therefore, E it could not be part and parcel of textile undertakings and not covered by the said 1983 or the 1995 Act. The appellant, therefore, filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. From the factual matrix of the case, it is evident that the respondent initially started the business F of selling various goods and articles from the departmental store operating from the premises in question (situated at Calcutta) under the name and style G of M/s Hai: & A'1derson. The Company purchased the textile mill in bombay on 12.6.1950 and commenced the additional business of manufacturing and selling cotton textile. The departmental store continued its business H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R. A upto 1976. Subsequent thereto, the building was developed as an income yielding asset and as such started the business of letting out various portions of the said building to different business organizations. The total area of the premises is about 4 acres and on an area B of 345 sq. ft. the registered office of the company is situated. The business of textile mill remained completely separate from the premises business of letting out. They had not been interconnected and the premises business has no connection with running the textile undertakings. c The accounts of the property business were separately and independently maintained. Staff engaged in the property business were also not connected. They had no concern. with the working of the textile mill, except the Secretary of the Company, as he had to be the same 0 person in view of the requirement of the proyisioni:. .A Companies Act, 1961. No amount for the textile mi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.