UNION OF INDIA versus NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 28-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
UNION OF INDIA
v.
NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.
(Review Petition (C) Diary No. 40966 of 2013)
IN
Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2014 – ss.5,6,7,8 – Effect of – Original suit land
owners executed lease deed for 99 years which was  to expire on
21.10.1990 – A structure was erected to house a cotton mill on the
property – Thereafter, property was vested in a public charitable
trust and the respondents are the present trustees of the said Trust –
Suit land was leased to ‘P’ Mills for the residue of the unexpired
period of lease – Textile Undertakings Act, 1983 was enacted to
take over the management of textile undertakings including ‘P’ Mills,
pending their nationalization – Lease granted in favour of ‘P’ Mills
expired by efflux of time, however, it continued to occupy the suit
property as a protected or statutory tenant in terms of Bombay Rents,
Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Trust issued a
legal notice to appellant-National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTC)
terminating its tenancy qua the suit property – Textile Undertaking
(Nationalisation) Act, 1995 came into force on 01.04.1994 – The
1947 Act stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999
– Trust filed a suit under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only
against the appellant-NTC, which was decreed in favour of Trust
and appellant-NTC was directed to hand over the vacant and
peaceful possession of the suit premises – Appellate Court affirmed
the judgment and decree of the trial Court – Appeal was dismissed
by the Supreme Court – Review Petition by Union of India – During
the pendency of review petition, the Validation Act 2014 came into
effect – Review Petitioner contended that subsequent legislation
has completely altered the status of the parties retrospectively qua
the suit property with effect from 01.04.1994 by legal fiction, as a
result of which the cause of action against NTC as referred to in the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
subject suit had become non-existent – Held: S.3 of the 1995 Act
stands amended by virtue of the 2014 Act – Now, as per the amended
s.3 of the 1995 Act w.e.f. 01.04.1994, by operation of law the
statutory or protected tenancy rights of ‘P’ Mills in respect of the
suit property stood transferred to and vested in the Central
Government and it continues to so vest in it and that the decree
against NTC including the undertaking given by NTC has been
rendered unenforceable by a legal fiction – As a result, the Trust
being the landlord is obliged to take recourse to remedy against the
Central Government (Union of India) to get back possession of the
suit property, as per the dispensation specified in the concerned
Rent Legislation – Textile Undertakings Act, 1983 – Bombay Rents,
Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Textile
Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 – s.3 – Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.111.
Review – Remedy of – Third party to the proceeding – Held:
s.114 and Or.XLVII of CPC states that any person considering himself
aggrieved can file a review petition – Further, neither Or.XLVII of
CPC nor Or.XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of
review only to the parties to the judgment under review – Therefore,
even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an
aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition
– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or.XLVII – Supreme
Court Rules – Or.XLVII.
National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar
Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 695 : [2012]
14 SCR 472 ; Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmal Azim
Khan and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 200 : [1971] Suppl. SCR
433 ; S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic
Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464 : [2007] 12 SCR 1050
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores
Limited and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 : [2013] 2 SCR
1045 ; Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo
Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (1923) Vol. L
(IA) 324 ; B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Others
(2007) 5 SCC 745 ; Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v.
Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod
Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1 : [1992] 2 SCR
999 ; Bhoolchand and Another v. Kay Pee Cee
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
Investments and Anothe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.