MAHABIR SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 27-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MAHABIR SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. 
AUGUST 27, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971: 
Proceedings pending before BIFR to streamline the working of the sick 
industry--Open to the appellants to make representation to BIFR which 
would dispose it of-Pending civil suits-Open to pa1ties to agitate their rights 
in the suits-Decrees will be passed by Civil Court in accordance with law. 
T71e Ishwa1i Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Am: Etc. v. T7ie State of 
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc., (1980] 3 SCR 331, referred to. 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2576-77 
of 1981 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.81 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 8135 and 4301 of 1990. 
H.N. Salve, D. Dave, B. Sen, Yogeshwar Prasad, D.V. Sehgal, Mrs. 
Rani Chhabra, Pradeep Mishra, P.K. Bajaj, S. Kulshreshtha, R.K. Gupta, 
S.K. Gupta, Ashok K. Srivastava, S.D. Sharma and Rishi Kesh for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In C.A. Nos. 2576-77/81, 347/86, W.P. No. 7535-36/85 and CMP No. 
18628/86 !11 CA. No. 1292/86. 
E 
F 
These matters are disposed of together. We need not elaborately 
mention the facts leading to filing of these appeals and Writ Petitions. G 
Suffice it to state that the validity of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) 
Act, 1971 was upheld by this Court in The lshwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) 
Ltd. & Anr. Etc. v. T71e State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc., (1980) 3 SCR 
331. However, proceedings before the BIFR are pending to streamline the 
working of sick industry, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Shri H.N. H 
229 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Writ 
Petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had discussion with his clients 
after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the appellants are 
proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for eonsideration of their 
cases and so it was not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that view, 
B we need not decide the case on merits. It would be open to the appellants 
to make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR to 
entertain the representation and dispose it of. 
c 
The appeals and Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed as 
withdrawn with the above observation. We make it clear that no issue of 
law or fact is left open in these cases. 
Pending appeal, the appellant made an application in CMP No. 
18628/86 for directions as regards the possession of the bungalow occupied 
by the Director of the appellant Company. When there was a conflicting 
D claim as regards the possession, this Court had called for a report from the 
District Judge, Bulandshehar. In furtherance thereof, the District Judge 
submitted the report. On consideration of the report by proceedings dated 
January 09,1990 this Court passed the order as under : 
E 
F 
"In this case, a report has· been received from the learned District 
Judge as to the persons who are in possession of the property as 
on May 9, 1986. These are clearly prima facie findings in order to 
enable this Court to pass an interim order. We direct that the status 
quo regarding the possession, as reported by the District Judge 
will continue till the disposal of the case. 
We may make it clear that we do not pronounce regarding the title 
to the property in question and also regarding any question of 
mesne profits which the, appellants may be entitled to. The appel-
lants, if they so desire, may take the appropriate proceeding in the 
G 
matter." 
In view of the fact that we are now dismissing the appeals as 
withdrawn we make it clear that the order and the status quo order stand 
discharged. whoever seeks any positive directions as regards the possession 
H of the bungalow, it would be open to the appropriate party to take such 
MAHABIR SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. STATE 
231 
procedure as is available at law. We give eight weeks' time from today to A 
take such steps; until then the status quo order granted by this Court would 
continue for eight weeks only and no further. As regards the vesting and 
other incidental issues, it would be open to the appropriate parties to lay 
proceedings under Section 10 of U.P. Sugar Industry Undertakings Act 
before the prescribed authority which would decide the matter in accord-
B 
ance with law. It woul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.