LexVISHNU DAYAL JHUNJHUNWALA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D
.. [D, .A. DESAI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.].
Defen<e of Indid Rules,
1962. Rules j15 and . 125A Sutor Mill·
Ciosed-Order of Central ·Gov(3rnmenr taking over
Manageme~t-Authoris~d
control/er appointed· order of Central GoVernm,nt-Whethei· valid.
. '
.
·- .
.
WOrds· & Phrases:
1Undertaking'-'Engaged_ in·the product{on of'-
Meanint of-Rule 125A Defence of Indian Rules, 1962.
.
-
.
I
E •
The management of the Su~ar ·Mill of th.e. Appellant was tal<en over
under Rule 125 of the l>efence of India Rules 1962 and an Authorised _Con•
!roller was appointed •
.
1nthe appeal by certificate to this· ·Court, it was .contended on behalf
· _ pf the Appellant that long before passing.of the order and even· before sugar
was decl,ared to be an essential. commodity; the appellant bad, completely
.F
stopped the. rUnning of the Mill with no intent{on to starfit again, there_·was,
therefore, no undertaking within the me&ning of Rule 125.A and the ord~r
passed under Rule 125A whicb was not attracted mu't. be held to 1"', bad ai;id
inv31id.
_
.•
on behalf o.f the Union of India, it was contended that Rule 12SA
G
confers ju~isdiction and authority to_ pass. ao order eveo in respect of.an
undertaking cloSed and int.ended to ·be permallently shut· ~own.
H
Dismissing the ap·p~1,
'
HELD: the taking over of the manag<m<nt Of the sugar mill of the
appellant and the appointment cf the aU1hcri<Cd contrclkr "ere perfectly
valid and lawful and. the act dote by iheauthorim! contro!Juin t~ecours~
of roantiiement is bindill\l op the app~)lant• (SS3Al
·
•
y
'.
•
·'
..
'\'.D. JHUNJHUNWALA V. UNION
531
2. Although Ru)e 125 confers very wide· powers for genbral controi of ·
an undertaking, there is no provision in .the ·said ruie to ta.ke over the manage-
ment of any_ underta\ing. Rule: 12.SA by way of amendment was; therefore.
inserted to confer further power of taking over the ruanag{tn<nt of-part~cul~r
undertakings and of appointing
authorised controllers for running such
undertakings. [541G, 542AJ
3. Rule 125A makes it clear that the rule was not intended to apply
to each and every
undetta~ing within the meaning of Rule 125. Speciitl
provision. is. P,ade i.n ~ule 125A i0' respect of particular undertakings only.
Rule 125A describes and particularises the undertakings to which this rule
will be applicabie. [542B]
·
.A
B
c
4. 1'.he provision in Rule 12SA that "in· this rule unless the context
-.otherwise requires, an •undertaking' means any undertaking (includfJg an
underiaking vested ill or contro1led or managed by, a lcicalauthority) which
is ,engaged· in--_;,, is merely descriptive of·t~e undertaking to_ ·which this
rule is applica,b1e. The words "which is engaged in ·the production" . merely
D :
i:Iescribes. the .kind Of und.ertakinS .by referring to _the nature of the activity qf
the -Undert.akirig for bringing it ·within the purview of Rule 12SA and they
hav'e no be>-ar-ing on the question. ~hether the activities. are in the· prOcess of
being carried on or have been stopped. The expression any undertaking whi,ch
is 'engaged in' has been used to d..escribe the nature· of business of the
undf;rt<iking and is m:rely descriptive of the undertaking w· which t.kis rule
willapply. [542C-EJ
· ·
E·
. CIVIL APPELl\A.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 481 9f
1971.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd Deci:_mber,
F'
1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 210 of
1967 ..
S.T. Desai and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.
Harbans Lal,
Miss A. Subhashini and V,B, SDharya for the
Respondent.
. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit fqr Respondent. No. 3.
The Judgment of t)le Co~rt was delive~ed ~
A
B
·c
D
·E··
F
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984) 3 s.c.R.
. .
AMARENDRA NATH Sm, J.
Whether the order of the Central
·oovernment taking, over the management of t)\e Sugar Mill of the
·Appellant. under Rule 125A of the Defence of India Rule;; and
appointing an authorised Controller of the .said Mill thereunder is
valld, is the principal question which falls for determination in this
appeal by certificate.
The main contention of Mr. S. T, Deasi, learned Counsel for
the appellant, is that .on a proper construction of Rule l 25A of
the Defence of.Indi~ Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) .
the o.rder taking over the management of the Sugar· Mill under
this rule is invalid, as on the date ofthe order the Sugar Mili was ·
· closed .and the appExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.