9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sale notice thereto. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows: "...to issue appropriate writs, orders or directions and more particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus and after calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 23-4-2002 in so far as it grants permission to sell the machinery and the consequential sale notice issued by the fifth respondent published in the Hindu dated 16-12-2002 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the first respondent BIFR to go ahead with the Rehabilitation Scheme prepared pursuant to its proceedings dated 23-4-2002 and pass such other orders..." In short, the contention of the petitioner-Union and the other Trade Unions was that there are about thousand workers working in the Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Limited, third respondent in this appeal, (in short the sick mill ) and that the said Trade Unions were representing a few of those workers. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that the third respondent mill was incorporated in the year 1935 and the total number of workers was about 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over their dues from the sick mill in case the mill continues to run. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the mill is a running-mill. 6. It is against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 7. Shri M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, his systematically taken us through the whole history of this litigation and contends that the impugned order is completely oblivious of the jurisdictional aspects as also the factual aspects. Learned counsel points out that the writ petition itself was not maintainable at all and if at all it was maintainable, it has been maintained on the basis of the totally incorrect facts, which facts, though pointed out to the learned Single Judge by way of the counter-petition, have been left out of the consideration by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel says that on that account the order is completely erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 7.1 Learned counsel firstly points out that the appellant is a non-banking financial company and it had entered into three hire purchase agree-ments, dated 31-8-1995, 31-3-1997 and 17-5-1997, with the sick-mill. These were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15-10-2001, a warrant came to be issued by this Court, after appointing an Advocate Commissioner, to take possession of the hired machinery. 7.5 The Advocate Commissioner tried to take possession of the hired machinery but could not do so due to the tactics adopted by the sick-mill and, therefore, he filed a report on 29-11-2002 suggesting the sale of machinery, which suggestion was accepted by the Court and the Advocate Commissioner was permitted to continue further works and granted two months time to complete the work of publication of sale notice, etc. and sell the machinery to the highest bidder without dismantling the same. This was probably felt necessary because, in the opinion of the Advocate Commissioner if the hired machinery were to be dismantled for the purpose of sale, their value would have been substantially reduced and, therefore, it was proposed to sell the hired machinery in the same condition that they were in. It is at that point of time, the present writ petitions came to be filed by the different Trade Unions, which were registered as W.P. Nos. 79, 972 to 974 and 1526 of 2003. 7.6 Learned counsel points out that a completely misleading statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sick-mill, there would be no question of the machinery of the appellant company, which were hired to the sick-mill, being in any way connected with the proceedings before the BIFR and, therefore, the BIFR would have no jurisdiction whatsoever in so far as the machinery of the appellant company is concerned. For this purpose, learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Ananta Udyog P. Ltd. v. Cholamandalam Investment Finance Co. Ltd. 1995 (1) CTC 206. 8. As against this, M/s. N.G.R. Prasad and Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Trade Union very earnestly point out that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in confirming the stay order was well justified particularly, in view of the humanitarian angle that in case the machinery in question were directed to be sold out,the running of the mill will come to a grinding halt, which would deprive the livelihood of one thousand of workers and their family. Learned counsel earnestly urged that the question involved herein pertains to the existence of the families of about one thousand workers and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has taken a correct view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually be outside the jurisdiction of the BIFR altogether. Once that position is clear, it will be crystal clear that the order for sale of the machinery did not emanate out of the proceedings before the BIFR and it indeed could not have been so yet, a submission came to be made that the sale of the machinery was in pursuance of the order dated 23-4-2002 passed by the BIFR. We have already reiterated that we do not find anything in the BIFR s order to that effect. 10. On the other hand, the claim made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sale notice emanated out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, sitting on the Original Side of this Court, in the A.Nos. 2005 to 2010 of 2001 has not been refuted at all by the learned counsel for the first respondent Union and in our opinion rightly so. Once that position is clear, the very basis of the writ petition is knocked out and the very basis of the rationale used by the learned Single Judge is also knocked out because if the writ petition itself was based on the incorrect factual basis then, it could not be allowed to stand much less under the orders of the nature concerned herein could be allowed to emanate fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
