LexSHRI AMBALAL M. SHAH AND ANOTHER versus HATHISINGH MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
38.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
171
~
~~, i. • Act cannot legitimately be pressed into service for
the purpose of construing the relevant provisions
~
of the Act ; even so, incidentally it may be permis~
sible to observe that the construction of r. 4(2)
which we are inclined to adopt is consistent with
the respondent's case that s.2 (1 )(b)(i) includes
agricultural produce utilised by the appellant for
':!
its own business.
-
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1
SHRI AMBALAL M. SHAH AND ANOTHER
v.
HATRISINGH MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
(K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH
and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Industrial Untkrtaking-lnvestigation into its affairs by
Central Government-Takinq over of manoqement by officer appoin·
ted by Government on the basis of report--Legality-lndust1·ies
(Development and Regulation) Act. 1961 (66 of 1961), ss. 16,
18 A(I)(b).
Being of the opinion that 1lhere had been a• substantial
fall in the volume of production in respect of cotton textiles
manufactured in the respondent company, an industrial under-
taking, for which having regard to the economic CQnditions
•
prevailing there was no justification; the Central Government
,\ made an order under s.15 of the Industries (Development
and Regulation)
Act, 195 l,
appointing a committee of
three persons
for
the
purpose of making
a
full
and
complete investigation into the circumstances of the case.
After the committee madeits report, the Central Government
being of the opinion thereupon
that
the
company was
being managed in a manner highly detrimental to public
interest, made an order under s.
18 A of the Act authorising
the first appellant to take over the management of the whole· of
~-~he·· said
undertaking.
The
respondents
challenged the
- legality of the order on the ground, inter alia, that on the
proper construction of
s,18 A the Central Government hac'
the right to make the order under that section on the ground
1981
ThtiD-i
TeaC<u, Ltd.
••
Crmihiia':i.~lrM ~'.
Aur~ral'
Jniiome .. tax,
Wes!B<ngal
Gajerzitloagadkar J.
1961
A"!11Jat 21.
19il
ShrFAlfi66l~l
M.Shah ·
••
lfa!lti.,ng/i ·
M~urt.g
au., f;f&
....
L1as Gupta .1.
172
StJPREME COURT REPORTS
that the compam· wa; being managed in a manner highly
dttrimcntal to public interest <Jnly \vhcrc the inYcstigation 1nade
under s.15
\Va'\ initL\ted on the basis of the op'tdun as
mentioned in s. IS{b),
"·herc.1~ in
the present case,
the
investigation ordered by the Central Go\·crnmcnt \vas initiate·d
<°')
..
j
'-~ .
on the formation of an opinion as mentioned in cl. (a)(i) of
s. l 5.
Held, that the order passed by the Central Government
under s.18 A was valid and that
the words used bv the
legislature ins. 181\ (l)(b) "in respect of which au investiga-
tion has been made under s. 15,. could not be cut down by
the restricting phrase ''based on an opinion that the industrial
undrrtaking is being n1anaged in a manner highly dctrin1cntal
to fl1c scheduled industry concerned or to public interest."
Section l8A (l)(b) empo\\ers the Central Government
to authorise a person to take over the management of an
industrial undertaking if the one con<li!ion of an investigation
made under s. 15 had Leen fulfilled irrespective of on what
opinion that investigation , ... as
iuitiateU, an<l the
further
rondition is fulfilled that the Central Government was of
opinion that such undtrcaking \vas
being
managtd -in a
manner highly detrimental to the scheduled industry concerned
or to public interest.
CIVIL APPELLATE ,TURI8DICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 285 of 1961.
·.
1
Appeal from th<' judgment all(! order dated
December 6, 1960, of the Gujra• High Court in
Special Civil Applicatioll No. 434 of HJGO.
r
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor.General of
India, R. H. Dhebar and
'J'. M. Sen, for
the
appella,nts.
I ..
M. Nanawti, 8. N. Andley, Rameshwar
•
Nrith and P. L. Vohrn, for the respondents.
'
l!l61. August 21. Th!' .Judgment of the Court
wa.s delivered by
DAH Ge PTA, J .-This •1ppeal by special lca.v.e
raises a qucAtion of the <·orrect intt>rpretation of
some
words in s. l 8A( l )( b)
of the Industries
(Development and Rcgnlrttion) Act, 1!)51.
Tho
Central Government made an onler under s. 15 of -111-·
that Aet appointing a committee of three . persons ·
for the purpose of·making full and complete inv.csti'
•
3 S.C.R.
SUP~EME COURT REPORTSExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.