NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MN) LTD. versus M/S DURGA TRADING CO. AND ORS.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 17-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 162 
A 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MN) LTD. 
v . 
• 
M/S DURGA TRADING CO. AND ORS. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 2788 of 2005) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2015 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
c 
PRAFULLA C.PANT, JJ.] 
Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) 
Act, 1971: ss. 4 and 7 - Agreement to sell entered into 
between respondent no. 1 and erstwhile owner of Textile 
D Undertaking in 1975 -Agreement contained clauses which 
mandated the execution of registered sale-deed or 
conveyance deed within three years - However, the same 
• 
was never done -
In 1983, management of textile 
undertaking of erstwhile owner taken over by the central 
E Government under the 1983 Act and thereafter vested in 
Central Government under the 1995 Act - Subject premises 
declared Public Premises and notices issued to respondent 
no. 1 to evict the premises - Challenge against - Held: The 
subject land got vested with the Government and was 
F deemed to have been transferred in favour of the appellant 
in view of provisions of 1983 Act and 1995 Act- In view of 
such vesting, respondent no. 1 cannot claim to be an 
authorized occupant within the meaning of s.2(g) of the 
1971 Act- Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 
G - s.3 - Textile Undertakings (taking over of Management) 
Act, 1983. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
• 
H 
162 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MN) LTD. v. DURGA 163 
TRADING CO. 
HELD: 1. Section 3(1) of the Textile Undertakings A 
(Nationalization) Act, 1995 provides that on the 
appointed date, the right, title and interest of the owner 
in relation to every textile undertaking shall stand 
transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central 
Government Sub-section.(2) thereof provides that every B 
textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central 
Government by virtue of sub-section (1) shall 
immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to 
and vested in the appellant-Corporation. Liability if any 
of the owner of a textile undertaking i.e. SSML of any C 
period prior to the appointed day is liability of such 
owner (SSML) and can be enforceable against him and 
not against the Central Government or the appellant in 
view of Section 5(1) of 1995 Act. Therefore respondent 
n9.1 cannot derive any advantage against the Central D 
Government or the appellant on the ground of pendency 
of a suit against the owner (SSML). [Paras 7, 14 and 15] 
[172-G-H; 173-A; 179-A, Band DJ 
2. The agreement to sell relied upon by respondent E 
no.1 itself contained clauses which mandated the 
execution of registered sale-deed or conveyance deed 
within three years. However, the same was never done. 
Even if it is admitted that respondent no.1 has acted 
on the agreement to sell and has paid the entire F 
consideration, it cannot be a ground to hold that 
respondent no.1 is authorized occupant within the 
meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises 
(Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. [Paras 
13, 17] [177-B, 181-G] 
' G, 
Govt. of AP. v. Thumma/a Krishna Rao and Anr. (1982) 
2 SCC 134:1982 (3) SCR 500; State of U.P v. Zia Khan 
(1998) 8 SCC 483; National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. 
Sitaram Mills Ltd. & Ors. 1986 (Supp.) SCC 117: 1986 SCR H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
.187; Mis. Doypack §ystems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & 
Ors. (1988) 2 SCC 299: 1988 (2) SCR 962 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
B 
1982 (3) SCR 500 
Referred to. 
Para 6.8 
(1998) 8 sec 483 
Referred to. 
Para 6.8 
1986 SCR 187 
Referred to. 
Para 9 
c 
1988 (2) SCR 962 
Referred to. 
Para 16 
•• 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
2788 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2003 of the 
D High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 
1552 of 2000. 
E 
F 
G 
Ranjeet Kumar, S. G., Sidharth Luthra, B. Sunita Rao, 
Anurag for the Appellant. 
Shyam Divan, Sumit Goel, Kumar Shashank, Aayush 
Agarwal, Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh (for Parekh & Co.) for 
the Respondents. 
The ::Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SUDHANl:!U JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This 
appeal has been preferred by the appellant against 
judgment dated 61h February, 2003 passed by the High Court 
of Judicat\Jre at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1552 of 2000. 
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High 
Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 and 
· held as follows: 
"11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 
H 
the petitioner having acted on the agreeme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.