LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus OKARA GRAIN BUYERS SYNDICATE LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. SS.C.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS 387 dustrial Society v. Workmen and others( 1> the question 1963 as to whether a transfer has been effected so as to - attract s. 25FF must ultimately depend upon the Managementof evaluation of all the relevant factors and it cannot R.S. Madhoram be answered by treating any one of them as of over· & Sons riding or conclusive significance. Having regard to v. the facts which are relevant in the present case, we Its Workmen are satisfied that the appellant cannot claim to be G . -;;- dk a successor-in-interest of the firm so as to attract a1en ';ga ar the provisions of s. 25FF of the Act. The transfer · which has been affected by the firm in favour of the appellant does not, in our opinion, amount to the transfer of the ownership or management of an under· taking and so, the Tribunal wa~ right in holding that s. 25FF and the proviso to it did not apply to the present case. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. STATE OF PUNJAB v. OKARA GRAIN BUYERS SYNDICATE AND ORS. (AND CONNECTED APPEALS) LTD. (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SOBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARAND J.R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Statute, interpretation of-State, if bound by statute-"Person", if includes State-Displaced persons' (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, scope of. The thirteen respondents who were displaced creditors from West Pakistan filed at various places before the Tribunals created under the Displaced Persons' (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, petitions (1) [1963) Supp. I S.C.R. 730. 1963 November Jj 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] under s. 13 of the Act claiming certain amounts from the State of Punjab. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant State of Punjab that these petitions were not maintainable against the State. The v objections were rejected by the Tribunals which held that the 1963 · . claims were maintainable. The State went in revision to the High Okara Gram Court but those revisions were also rejected. The State came to Buyers Syndicate this Court by Special Leave. Ltd. and others The contentions raised before this Court were that what was claimed from the Government was not a "debt" within the meaning of the Act of 1951 and that the State of the Punjab was not a "person" against whom an application under s. 13 of the Act could be made. It was also contended that the State was not bound by the statute. Held: What was claimed from the State was a debt and the applications under s. 13 of the Act against the State of the Punjab were maintainable. The test for determining whether tbe Government is bound by a statute is whether it is expressly named in the provision which it is contended binds it, or whether it is manifest from the terms of the statute that it was the intention of the legislature that it shall be bound and the intention to bind would be clearly made out if the beneficient purpose of the statute would be wholly frustrated unless the Government were bound. Section 32 of tjte Act provides that the debts owing by the State to a displaced debtor ought to be ascertained for determining the paying capacity of the debtor and relief afforded to the displaced debtor on the basis that such debts dne to him are realisable assets within ihe scope of the Act. It follows that the debt due by the Government or by the State is within the Act by necessary impli- cation because the same is necessary for working out the relief to which a displaced debtor who files an application under s. 5 or s. 11(2) is entitled. Section 32 contemplates a balancing of credits and debits with a view to adjust them in a manner conso- nant with equity and justice of the case as felt by the legislature. The entire scheme will go awry and the balance and harmony which are intended to be brought in would be nullified and dishar- mony brought into the working of the Act if the contention of the appellant that the State is not bound by the Act is accepted. The rule of interpretation of statutes that the State is not bound by a statute unless it is so provided in express terms or by necessary implication is good law in India. As it cannot be said of the State that it either voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, the State may not be within the contemplation of the expression "person" against whom claims could be made under s. 13 on .that basis. However, it i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.