NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. versus M/S. HARIBOX SWALRAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 05-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. 
• • 
v. 
MIS. HARIBOX SWALRAM AND ORS. 
"
APRIL 5, 2004 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226. 
,., 
Cause of action-Territorial jurisdiction-Facts giving rise to-Held: 
c Only those facts which have a nexus or relevance with the /is involved in the 
case give rise to the cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction. 
Writ petition -Maintainability of-Disputed questions of fact-Delay and 
/aches-Held: Highly disputed questions of fact could be proved by leading 
evidence only in a properly constituted suit and not a mailer to be investigated 
D in a writ petition-Hence, such writ petition is liable to be rejected on this 
ground as well as on the ground of delay. 
,.. 
Mandamus-Issuance of-Grounds for-Business contract-Held: For 
issuance of mandamus it must be shown that a Statute imposed a legal duty 
E 
and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the Statllle to enforce its 
performance-In case of violation of the terms of a pure and simple business 
contract no mandamus could be issued. 
Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, 1983: 
F 
Section 3(7)-Acquisition and requisition-"liabi/ity"-Enforcement of-
Held: Liability incurred by a textile company before the appointed day could 
-' 
not be ef?forced against the Central Government or the Custodian. 
Words & Phrases: 
... 
G 
"Liability"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 3(7) of the Textile 
Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act, I 983. 
The respondents had been purchasing various qu_antities of cloth 
• 
from two textile Mills both situate at Bombay. The respondents entered 
.. 
into contracts and made advance payment against the same. The concerned 
H 
738 
• 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN I.TD. 1· llARIBOX SWALRAM 
739 
mills supplied and delivered the goods to the respondents from time to A 
time but a substantial part of the contract remained unexecuted. The 
respondents requested the mills to take necessary steps for immediate 
delivery of the goods, in respect whereof payment had already been made. 
The mills intimated that deliveries could not be effected as the banking 
transaction and accounts of the mills had been tjozen, but assured that 
arrangements were being made to deliver the gdods as early as possible. B 
The management of the mills was taken over by the Central Government 
under Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Ordinance, 
1983 which was subsequently replaced by Textile Undertakings (Taking 
over of Management) Act, 1983. The Central Government constitu:ed the 
appellant for the purpose of managing the textile undertakings, which in C 
turn as additional custodian took over the management of the said two 
mills. The respondents thereafter approached the appellant for release of 
the goods and one bale of contractual specification was delivered but the 
Excise Authorities detained 12 bales, as a consequence whereof the same 
were not delivered. 
I 
Subsequently, the appellants sent a reply stating that (1) all the 
outstanding contracts had beei't cancelled on the date of take over as they 
were not binding upon them; (2) the deposits that were made with the 
erstwhile management were not specifically marked towards any of the 
invoice of packed material and as such could not be adjusted against any 
future delivery and the respondents would have to claim this amount from 
the erstwhile management since the Custodian was prohibited from 
discharging any liability pertaining to pre-take over period; and (3) there 
were no invoices against which payments were receiVed from, the 
petitioners prior to take over and as such the question of effecting delivery 
of paid stocks did not arise. 
Being aggrieved the respo.ndents filed a writ petition before the 
Calcutta High Court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued 
commanding the appellant to produce the entire records relating to the 
withholding of delivery of goods pursuant to the contracts. 
The appellant contended that the cause of action had arisen at 
Bombay and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had no territorial 
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition; that the writ petition was highly 
belated and raised disputed questions of fact and, therefore, was not 
maintainable. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
740 
SUPREMlo COURT REPORTS 
f2004J 3 S.CR. 
A 
Single Judge held that the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction 
B 
to entertain the writ petition. But the Divis

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