Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Bijali Cotton Mills Pvt. Lotd. v. Vii A.D.J. - WRIT - C No. 24286 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 4126 (12 March 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO. 24286 of 1989

Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. and another


VIIth Additional District Judge, and others

Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.

Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may finally be disposed off under the Rules of the Court.

Heard counsel for the parties.

This writ petition is directed against concurrent orders of eviction passed against the petitioner in proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as Eviction Act).

Bijli cotton Mills Pvt. Limited is a company duly registered under the Companies Act. It owned the Bijli Cotton Mills situated at Mandu Road, Hathras, when it become sick and closed down. The Government first took over its Management by Ordinance No. 9 of 1972 which was later replaced by Act No. 72 of 1972. Thereafter, the Mill was nationalized by Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act, 1974 whereafter the Mill together with all its assets vested with the Central Government with effect from 1.4.1974. As the petitioners were not vacating the disputed premises even after vesting, proceedings for their eviction under Eviction Act were initiated. In pursuance of a show cause, the petitioner filed his reply and after hearing the parties, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction dated 26.12.1977. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 17 of 1978 to the District Judge which was also dismissed by order and judgment dated 7.12.1989. Both these orders are impugned.

Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the disputed premises situated at 1661, Mandu Road was not part of the Textile Undertaking standing on plot no. 1663 which stood vested in the Central Government under section 3 of Act No. 72 of 1972 and belonged to the Company which was being used to house the Managing Director and other servant or officers of the company, therefore, the provisions of Eviction Act would not apply to it and therefore the entire proceedings are vitiated.

This argument was also raised before the court below without success.

It would be appropriate to note section 3 of the Acquisition Act, which reads as under:-

"3 (1) On the appointed day, every sick textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every such sick textile undertaking shall stand transferred to, and shall vest absolutely in, the Central Government.

(2) Every sick textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of sub-section (1) shall, immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to and vested in, the National Textile Corporation."

It mandates that the sick textile undertaking together with the right, title and interest of the owner of such undertaking shall vest with the Central Government. Section 4(1) qualifies the general effect of such vesting as :-

"4(1) The sick textile undertaking referred to in section 3 shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, lease-holds, powers, authorities and privileges and all property, movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment, cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments and book debts and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession, power or control of the owner of the sick textile undertaking, whether within or outside India, and all books of account, registers and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto and shall also be deemed to include the liabilities and obligations specified in sub-section (2) of section 5."

It declares that all assets, rights and interest or arising out of all the proprieties which were in ownership, possession, power or control against the  owner of the undertaking, would vest absolutely. Both the sections have used the word ''textile undertaking' which has been defined in section 2 (o) as follows.

''2(o) "textile undertaking" means an undertaking engaged in the manufacture of textiles and to which the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, apply.'

The courts below have found that apart from overwhelming connecting evidence, there was direct evidence to show that the disputed premises was a part of the textile undertaking. The plans of the textile undertaking submitted by the company in 1959 and 1962 under the Factories Act, 1948 included the disputed property and it was also sanctioned as such. The insurance cover, municipal taxes etc of the disputed property were all included with that of the mills. The Supreme Court in M/s. Dovpack Systems Vs. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 782) has already held that such properties vest with the Government.

Both the authorities bellow have given cogent reasons for passing the eviction order which have not been demonstrated to be illegal or perverse requiring interference.

For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.

As the petitioner has remained in possession under the orders of this Court, now he is directed to vacate it within a month and hand over vacant possession to the Government or the custodian, National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd., Kanpur. No order as to cost.

Dt: March 12th  , 2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.