LexM.K.RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER versus GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 Thakur Amar Singhji v. 'State of Rajasth•n Venkataram• Ayyar J. 1955 April 20 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] properties are within the exemption enacted in sec- tion 20. To sum up: The impugned Act is not open to at- tack either on the ground that the Rajpramukh had no legislative competence to enact it, or that the pr<>- cedure prescribed in article 212-A for enactment of laws had not been followed. The Act is, in substance, one for acquisition of property, and is within the legislatiYc competence of the State, and it is protected by article 31-A. But the notification is bad as regards properties comprised in Petitions Nos. 392 and 488 of 1954, as izoras are not within the impugned Act. The properties mentioned in Petition No: 36 of 1955 are declicatcJ for religious services, and are exempt tmdcr section 20 of the Act. Appropriate writs will issue in these three petitions. In Petition No. 468 of 1954 the right of the peri- tioner to c!oim cxem ption under section 20 for the villa!ic of Jorpur:1 on the ground that it is dedicated for worship of the Deity is reserved, and the petition is otiH~r\vise dis1nis.sed. All the other !JCt1t1ons will stand dismissed. The parties wiil b(ar their own costs m ali the petitions. C\f. K. RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER ti. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS AND OTHERS. [S. R. DAs, RHAC'NATJ and SJNHA JJ.] Indian Companies Act, (Act VII of 1913), s. 232(1) as amended by Act XXll oj l936-'F/1e iuords "or any sale held without leave of the Court of any of the propc;·tit"-·s of the Co1npa11y" added in the sec- tion-FVhethcr lef!islaturc intended to 1nake alteration £n the !atu as respects sales effected by secured creditor-Secured creditor-TVhcther ouiside the toinding up--Construction_:Presumption against i111plied r1fteratict1 of law. The secured creditor is outside the winding up and can realise his securir:v \vithout the ieave of the winding up Court, though if he files a suit or takes other legal proceedings for the realisation of his security he is bound under s. 171 of the Indian Companies Act to obtain the leave of the winding up Court before he can do so although such leave \V1uld alinost automatically be granted. 2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 375 It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act oi Parliament with reference to words found in immediate con- nection with them. It is also a well-recognized rule of construction that the legisbture does not intend to make a substantial alteration in the law beyond what it explicitly declares either in express words or by ckar implication and that the general words of the Act are not to be so construed as to alter the previous policy of the law, un- less no sense or meani'1g can be applied to those words consistently with the intention of. p:eserving the existing policy untouched. Held therefore that having regard to the context in which the words "any sale held without leave of the Court of any of the pro- perties" added in s. 232( 1) bv the amending Act XXII of 1936 have been used in juxtapos;tion witn "any attachment, distress or execu- tion put into force without leave of the Court against the estate or effects" it would be a icgitimate construction to be put upon them that they refer only to sales held through the intervention of the Court and not to sales effected by the secured creditor outside the winding up and without the intervention of the Court, and that the amendment was not intended to bring within the >Weep of the general words saks effected by the secured creditor outside the winding up. Held accordingly that in the present case the sale effected by respondent No. 2 as the receiwr of the trustees of the debenture- holders in July 1954 was valid and binding on all parties concerned and could not be challenged as it was sought to be done by the Official Receiver. Food Controller v. Cork (1923 A.C. 647), Kayastha Training and Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Sat Narain Singh (f 1921] I.L.R. 43 All. 433), Baldeo Narain Sfrigh v. The United India Bank Ltd. ([1915] 38 J.C. 91), State of West Rengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and others ( 1954 S.C.R. 587), Angus Robertson and others v. George Day (L.R. [1879] 5 A. C. 63), Murugian, P. v. fainudeen, C. L. ([1954] 3 W.L.R. 682), National Assistance Board v. Wilkinson ([ 1952] 2 Q.B. 648), Vasudeva Mudaliar and others v. Srinivasa Pillai and another ([1907] l.L.R. 30 M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.