9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for payment under the Madura Sugars Limited (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 - Validity of notice served on the parties - Liability of the Government under the Act - Interpretation of Sections 5(4), 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, and 26 of the Act - Principles of natural justice regarding notice to the company. Analysis: The appellant sought a writ for payment from the first respondent under the Madura Sugars Limited (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984. The Act extinguished encumbrances like mortgage on the company's assets vested in the Government. The single Judge noted the absence of notice to the company, deeming the proceedings void due to a violation of natural justice. The Division Bench upheld this decision, emphasizing the necessity of notice to both respondents for a valid claim proceeding. The Division Bench analyzed Sections 5(4), 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, and 26 of the Act, concluding that the Government's liability extended only to the amount specified in Section 9. The company's liability persisted but was not enforceable against the Government. The appellant argued that Section 5(4) allowed claims beyond Section 9 amounts, and Section 26's interpretation by the Division Bench was flawed. However, the Court focused on the absence of notice to the company, crucial for principles of natural justice, affirming the Commissioner's adjudication as unenforceable. The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision. Despite acknowledging the appellant's arguments on statutory provisions, the Court maintained that the lack of notice to the company rendered the Commissioner's adjudication void. Upholding the importance of natural justice principles, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal to grant relief to the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of notice to all concerned parties for a valid claim proceeding.
|
