Vidarbha Mills Berar Ltd. & Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Transferred Case No. 33 of 1983.
In
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 1981.
In
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 1981.
Petitioner: Vidarbha Mills Berar Ltd. & Anr
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Transferred Case No. 33 of 1983.
In
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 1981.
In
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 1981.
Judges: O.CHINNAPPA REDDY & M.M.DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 10, 1986
Head Note:
Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, Section 4(1) & Section 4(3) – Whether properties which were excluded from the lease granted by the Company to the Govt. could also be taken over- Held once it is found to be the property of Textile Undertaking there is no escape from the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(3).
JUDGEMENT:
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:
1. The question raised in this case is whether the properties which were excluded from the lease granted by the company to the Government in 1966 could also be taken over as part of the ‘Sick Textile Undertakings’. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the very exclusion of the properties from the lease was an indication that these properties were not necessary for the running of the Mill and that they were not used in connection with the undertaking, at any rate from 1966. There is no substance in the submission. There is no dispute that the property is the property of the Textile Undertaking. Once it is found to be the property of the Textile Undertaking there is no escape from the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(3) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
1. The question raised in this case is whether the properties which were excluded from the lease granted by the company to the Government in 1966 could also be taken over as part of the ‘Sick Textile Undertakings’. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the very exclusion of the properties from the lease was an indication that these properties were not necessary for the running of the Mill and that they were not used in connection with the undertaking, at any rate from 1966. There is no substance in the submission. There is no dispute that the property is the property of the Textile Undertaking. Once it is found to be the property of the Textile Undertaking there is no escape from the provisions of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(3) of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
