1998 JTR(SC) 524
1999 AIR(SC) 581 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 3849 ; 1998 6 SCC 458 ; 1999 KHC 1599
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. N. Kirpal, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
M. P. ELECTRICITY BOARD, APPELLANT
Versus
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN., BHOPAL, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 582 of 1983,
decided on April 23, 1998.
Under Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the erstwhile liabilities of textile mills remained with the former owners, relieving the respondent from making any payment for the earlier dues.
Act Referred :SICK TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS NATIONALISATION ACT : S.5
Electricity Dues - Nationalisation of Textile Mills - The court upheld the respondent's contention that under Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the erstwhile liabilities of the textile mills remained with the former owners, relieving the respondent from making any payment for the earlier dues.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's claim pertained to electricity dues of textile mills taken over by the National Textile Corporation, relating to the period before nationalisation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court accepted the respondent's argument that the erstwhile liabilities remained with the former owners, and the respondent was not obligated to pay the earlier dues. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, and the liability for electricity dues prior to nationalisation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, which placed the liability for the earlier dues on the former owners of the textile mills.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was not liable to make any payment for the electricity dues prior to the appointed date.
Electricity Dues - Nationalisation of Textile Mills - The court upheld the respondent's contention that under Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the erstwhile liabilities of the textile mills remained with the former owners, relieving the respondent from making any payment for the earlier dues.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's claim pertained to electricity dues of textile mills taken over by the National Textile Corporation, relating to the period before nationalisation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court accepted the respondent's argument that the erstwhile liabilities remained with the former owners, and the respondent was not obligated to pay the earlier dues. The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, and the liability for electricity dues prior to nationalisation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, which placed the liability for the earlier dues on the former owners of the textile mills.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was not liable to make any payment for the electricity dues prior to the appointed date.
ORDER
1. The claim of the appellant is in respect of the electricity dues of the erstwhile textile mills which were taken over by the National Textile Corporation. The claim relates to the period prior to the taking over as on the appointed date, the day when the nationalisation took place.
2. The High Court accepted the contention of the respondent that by virtue of Section 5 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 the erstwhile liabilities continued to remain with all the former owners of the mills and that the respondent herein was not obliged to make any payment in respect of the earlier dues.
3. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court which has dealt with all the contentions raised by the appellant and we agree with the reasons contained therein while allowing the writ petition of the respondent and in coming to the conclusion that the respondent herein was not liable to make any payment in respect of dues prior to the appointed date. We find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.