NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (SM) LTD. versus ASSOCIATED BUILDING CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 31-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (SM) LTD. 
v. 
ASSOCIATED BUILDING CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 1995 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIP()ORNAN AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Textile Unde1taking (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983-Section 
3(1)(2)-The occupation of undivided and undemarcated portion of Bombay 
House by Respondent-Held does not amount to a right, power or authority 
or p1ivilege-Held, no vesting of 1igltt-Custodian seeki11g possession-Held 
without juriidiction. 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petition-Maintainability 
of-The Appellant-Custodia11-Seeking possessio11 and control of un-
~pecified prentises-No basis or 1nate1ial-Held, Wlit Petition niaintainable. 
The management of Tata Mills Limited was taken over by Appellant 
on 19.10.1983 by the Ad 40 of 1983. By a communication dated 16.1.1984, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the Appellant initiated Tata Mills Ltd. of its intention to take immediate 
possession and control of the premises in the Bombay House. The Tata 
Mills replied on 18.1.84 that they have not been allotted any specific E 
portion or part in Bombay house and they were allowed to continue their 
registered oftice only gratuitously. The letter further stated that the 
records of the Company will bear out the aforesaid fact. The Respondent 
No. 1 owners of the property also on 18.1.1984 wrote to the Appellant on 
the same lines and that they have no right to take possession. 
Since no reply was received from the Appellant nor did they seek for 
any records the respondents preferred a writ petition in Bombay High 
Court for restraining the .Appellant from taking over the possession or 
control of Bombay House. 
F 
The High Court held that (1) there was no material to show that G 
Tata Mills were occupying Bombay House as lessee (2) the right was only 
a personal right which is neither heritable nor transferable and there is 
no enforceable right and (3) It was not an asset, power, authority or 
privilege as contemplated by section 3(2) of the Act to authorise the 
custodian to take over the possession of any portion of the Bombay House. H 
595 
596 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
On appeal, the appellants contended that since the matter required 
evidence the High Court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction 
under Article 226 and that even on merits the High Court was in error. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B . 
HELD : I. The High Court was right in reaching the conclusion that 
the action of the Appellant seeking possession and control of unspecified 
portion of Bombay House is without jurisdiction. (606-C] 
2. The appellant has failed to prove. that there was any enforceable 
right or interest of the Tata Mills Ltd. in any portion of the Bombay House. 
C 
[606-D] 
3. The plea for the first time before this Court that Writ Petition is 
not maintainable or that further evidence is required to be taken to adjudi-
cate the rival pleas is rejected. (606-E] 
D 
4. The High Court was justified in exercising the jurisdiction vested 
in it under Article 226. (606-F] 
5. The failure of the appellant in verifying the records before 
proceeding with the matter has led to the tiling of the writ petition. The 
plea of Tata Mills stated in their communication dated 18.1.1984 was not 
E 
disproved. The High Court correctly reached the conclusion that the action 
of the Appellant seeking possession and control of unspecified portion of 
Bombay House is without jurisdiction. (606-R] 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2571 of 
1994. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 20.7.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 270 of 1984. 
V.R. Reddy Additional Solicitor General, T.V.S.N. Chari and N. 
Nayy•r for the appellant. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Ravinder Narain, Pallav Shishodia and D.N. Mishra 
for the Respondents. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
PARIPOORNAN, J. l. The third respondent in Writ Petition No. 
N.T.C. v. ASSOCIATED BLDG. CO. (PARIPOORNAN, J.( 
597 
270/84 High Court of Bombay, M/s. National Textile Corporation (South A 
Maharashtra) Limited, Bombay, the appellant in this appeal a'5ails the 
Judgment of the High Court rendered in the said Writ Petition dated 
20.7.1993. 
2. The Associated Building Company Limited, Bombay, (2) Ah-
medabad Advance Mills Company Limited, Bombay, (3) Swadeshi Mills 
Company Limited, Bombay, (4) Central Indian Spinning, Weaving and 
Manufacturing Company Limited, Bombay and (5) The Tata Mills Limited, 
Bombay (five petitioners) fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.