LexNATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. versus DR. RAJA RAM JAIPURIA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 7 S.C.R. 2S I A ,, NATIONAL TE,XTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. B v. DR. RAJA RAM JAIPURIA & 'ORS. , _ (Civil Appeal No. 4818 of 2013. etc.) .. ---._. . . •'' JULY 01, 2013 '" . [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] SWADESHI COTTON MILLS COMPANY LIMITED (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) C ACT, 1986: . . . . . s.27 - Complaint for wrongfully withholding the property forming part of textile undertaking - Held: In Doypack's case, the issue of vesting Bung/ow No. 2 of Swadeshi House was 0 neither considered nor was decided by Supreme Court -- Categorical decision in Doypack, rejection of subsequent application, filed by· appellant for clarification/modification, direction to approach the civil court, dismissal of complaint uls 27 of the Act and proceedings under PP Act, go against E the claim and stand of appellant - Orders of trial court and High Court upheld - Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ss. 5 and 7. . · •· The Central Government by notification dated 13.04.1978, u/s 18AA of the Industrial Development F Regulation Act, 1951, took over the management of six textile undertakings of the Swadeshl Cotton Mills Company Limited (SCMCL) including the Swadeshl Cotton Mills, Kanpur. As a result of the takeover, the NTC took possession arid custody of various properties G · belonging to the SCMCL Including a Guest House (Bunglow No. 1) and the Administrative Block (Bungalow , No. 3) of the premises known as 'Swadeshl House' . . However, Bungalow No. 2 of 'Swadeshi House'. continued to be in physical possession of the then Director of the H 28 ' NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 29 RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. scMCL (respondent No. 1). After this Court in Swadeshi A cotton Mills held the said takeover invalid, the Swadeshi cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 was enacted and as per s.3 thereof, every textile undertaking and the right, title and Interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood B . transferred and vested with the Central Government. The . transferred undertakings were further fransferred and vested in the NTC. In. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. , this Court held that the ownership and control of the SCMCL vested with the NTC. It was also held that Bungalow No. c 1 and the Administrative Block of Swadeshi House premises also vested. in the Central Government. The claim of the appellant as regards Bunglow No. 2 did not find favour with the courts. In the instant proceedings arising out of s.27 of the Swadeshi Act and ss. 5 and .7 D of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, initiated by the appellant claiming possession of Bunglow no. 2, it did not succeed in its case and ultimately, the High Court by the impugned orders dismissed the appellant's writ petitions. ' - -- .. . , -- . E · Disn'.iissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 A thorough analysis of the judgment in Doypack shows that the issue as to whether Bungalow No.2 of the Swadeshi House vested·in appellant or -not F was neither considered nor decided by this Court in the said case. The appellant has time and again filed various proceedings on the premise that Bungalow No.2 formed '- part of the Swadeshi House but failed in all the attempts. It is not in dispute that all the proceed!ngs went against G the ~ppellanl [para 9 and, 15) [40-B-C; 43-F-G] ';'.b'oypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others 1988 (2) SCR 962 = (1988) 2. SCC 299 - referred to.- -" _1.2 The various orders and decisions by different H I I ' ' ' • . ' I 1 , 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R. A courts negatived the claim of the appellant and the same issue is again sought to be raised by the appellant in the instant proceedings. In view of categorical decision of this Court in Doypack, rejection of subsequent application filed by the appellant for clarification/ B modification, direction to approach the civil court, initiation of proceedings under the PP Act which ended in dismissal, dismissal of complaint u/s 27 of the Swadeshi Act, by various courts, undoubtedly go against the claim and stand of the appellant [para 16) [43-H; 44- C A-BJ D 1.4 The orders passed by the trial court as well as the High Court are upheld. [para 17] [44-D] Case Law Reference: 1988 (2) SCR 962 referred to para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.