Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1967 (9) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ary to set out the allegations on which this winding-up petition is based, since it is likely to fail on the preliminary objection to be indicated presently of the opposite party. I shall, therefore, mention only such of the facts as are relevant for the appreciation of the preliminary objection. It is common ground that the aforesaid petition was filed on the 15th November, 1965, and notice was issued on it on the 22nd November, 1965. Thereafter, on the 22nd December, 1965, the Central Government passed an order under section 18E of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 hereinafter called the Act taking over the management and running of the opposite party, and on the 1st January, 1966, it appointed Sri P. N. Kapoor as it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the aforesaid sub-section is of sufficient amplitude to include not only the filing of a petition for the winding-up of a company but also its maintainability after the Central Government takes over its management, while on behalf of the petitioner Sri Gupta argued that the said word only meant the institution of a winding-up petition after the management of the company Was taken over by the Central Government. After giving the matter my anxious consideration, I am, however, of the opinion that the construction contended for by Sri Jagdish Swarup is to be preferred. I shall, therefore, proceed forthwith to record my reasons for coming to that conclusion. Now it will be noticed that sub-section ( c ) quoted above opens with the words "no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p of a company whose management and running was taken over by the Central Government except with the consent of the latter. I feel fortified in my interpretation as it is also in consonance with the aims and objects of the Act, viz ., of affording a chance to the Central Government to rehabilitate an industrial undertaking in the larger interest of the society, and to prevent its winding-up unless absolutely necessary. There is no direct authority on the interpretation of sub-section ( c ) of section 18E of the Act, but the observations made by their lordships of the Supreme Court, while interpreting the word "sued" in section 86, Civil Procedure Code read with section 8713, Civil Procedure Code, in Mohan Lal v. His Highness Maharaja .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uit or civil proceedings but also their pursuit through courts. A person is sued not only when a plaint has been filed but is sued also when the suit is pending against him. The word 'sued' covered the entire proceeding in any action and the person proceeded against is sued throughout the duration of the action. It follows that the consent is necessary not only for filing of the suit against the ex-ruler but also for its continuance from the time the consent is required". It may be mentioned that although the opening words of section 87B are that "no ruler of a former State may be sued in any court", the Supreme Court did not confine the necessity of the consent of the Central Government, to the filing of a suit against an ex-ruler, but a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s urged by Sri Gupta. Sri Gupta also contended that as at the time when the order under section 18E of the Act was passed, the petitioner has acquired a vested right to pursue his petition in this court without the leave of the Central Government, unless section 18E( c ) expressly or by necessary implication deprived him of that right the consent of the Central Government was not necessary in this case. The correctness of this contention can hardly be questioned but, as held above, section 18E( c ) on its own terms is clearly retrospective in its effect. The second contention also therefore fails. Thus, for these reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that this petition could not be maintained without the consent of the Central Gover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates