G.L.OZA, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
Anil Kumar Neotia – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- By the order passed by us on 29th March, 1988, we had dismissed this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We had, further, observed that we will indicate our reasons by a separate judgment. We do so herein.
2. This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act). It appears that there was an order made by the Central Government under S. 18AA(1)(a), Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the IDR Act) for taking over the management of the six undertakings of Swadeshi Cotton Mills, namely, (i) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur, (ii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry, (iii) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini, (iv) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan, (v) Udaipur Cotton Mills, Udaipur and (vi) Rae Bareli Textile Mills, Rae Bareli for a period of five years. There were several proceedings in the High Court of Delhi and in other High Courts. It is not necessary in view of the judgment of this Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 4826 and 7045 of 1987 M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.
followed : M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
relied on : Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab
explained and distinguished : State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga
distinguished : State of West Bengal v. Union of India
National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Sitaram Mills Ltd.
Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Employees
Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat v. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.