9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned Act can be held to be a law providing for the taking over of the management of the Mills for a limited period? 2. Whether the Act expresses the intention of the Parliament for taking over the management of the Textile Undertakings in the public interest or indicates the legislative intent to take over only those Mills whose financial condition became wholly unsatisfactory by reasons of mismanagement? 3. Whether the clubbing of the three Mills in the group of 13 violates the mandate under Article 14? 4. Whether there was a violation of Article 19(1)(g)? 5. Whether the High Court was justified in going behind the legislative intent to find out the true intention and concluding that there was gross discrimination? Summary: 1. Limited Period of Management Takeover: The Supreme Court held that the impugned Act provides for the taking over of the management of the Mills for a limited period, pending nationalisation. The Court disagreed with the High Court's reliance on Ramanlal's case, stating that the management takeover was for a limited period until the process of nationalisation was finalised. Thus, the law falls within the purview of Article 31A(1)(b) of the Constitution, making it immune from challenges under Articles 14 and 19. 2. Legislative Intent and Public Interest: The Supreme Court found that the Act unequivocally indicates that the Parliament intended to take over the management of the Textile Undertakings specified in the First Schedule in the public interest, pending nationalisation. The Court criticized the High Court for interpreting the term "mismanagement" to mean fraud or dishonesty, which was not supported by the Act's provisions or preamble. 3. Violation of Article 14: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in concluding that there was a violation of Article 14. The legislative decision to take over the management of the 13 Mills, including the three Mills in question, was based on the financial instability and the need to pump in large sums of public money for their revival. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to rehabilitate the Mills in the public interest, and the High Court's detailed examination of the Mills' functioning was beyond its judicial review power. 4. Violation of Article 19(1)(g): The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that there was a violation of Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that the Parliament's decision to take over the management of the Mills in the larger public interest, pending nationalisation, was justified. The Court rejected the argument that the Government should have resorted to other remedies under the Companies Act or Industrial Development and Regulation Act. 5. Examination of Legislative Intent: The Supreme Court held that while courts can examine materials to find out the legislative intent, they should not expand the language used in the preamble or go behind the apparent legislative intention. The Court found that the High Court was unjustified in its interpretation of the legislative intent and its conclusion that the Act was discriminatory. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court also vacated all interim orders passed during the pendency of the appeals, subject to the High Court's decision on specific assets claimed by the Elphinstone Spinning & Weaving Mills.
|
