2012 (4) SCC 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
RAHEJA UNIVERSAL LIMITED - Appellant
VERSUS
NRC LIMITED & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1920 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26149 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 1921 of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5360 / 2012 (CC 15948/2011)], Civil Appeal No. 1922 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26624 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 1923 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26964 of 2011)
Decided on : 7-02-2012.
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985–Section 22–Action against sick company–BIFR has jurisdiction to examine matter and grant or refuse its consent for institution, continuation and recovery of dues payable to a particular creditor, whatever nature of such dues may be–Merely because a demand by a creditor had not been made a part of scheme, pre or post-sanctioning of same for that reason alone, it would not fall outside ambit of protection of Section 22. (Para 25)
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985–Section 22–Action against sick company–BIFR has wide powers to impose restrictions in form of declaration and even prohibitory/injunctive orders right from stage of consideration of a scheme till its successful implementation–To protect industrial growth and to ensure revival, this preventive provision has been enacted–The provision has an overriding effect. (Para 35)
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985–Section 22–Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Section 53A–Action against sick company–Provisions of Act of 1985 shall prevail over provisions of Act of 1882–Act of 1985 is a special legislation providing for imperative functioning of specialized bodies like BIFR and AAIFR and is intended to appy to a very specific situation–Act of 1882 is a general law and controls and operates in a very wide field–Provisions of Section 53A would not alter poisition of Act of 1985 having an overriding effect vis-a-vis provisions of Act of 1882. (Paras 39, 40 and 48)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Sections 14 and 54–Mere contract for sale of immovable property does not create any interest in immovable property–Rule of prerpetuity cannot applied to a vovenant of pre-emption even though there is no time limit within which option has to exercised. (Paras 29 and 40)
(1990)2 SCC 440; (1997)10 SCC 649; AIR 2006 SC 3252; (2009)17 SCC 665; (1993)2 SCC 144; AIR 1998 SC 2928; AIR 1992 SC 1439; (2008)7 SCC 619; (2005)8 SCC 219; AIR 1967 SC 744; AIR 1997 SC 53; AIR 2008 SC 1276; JT 2011 (8) SC 129–Relied.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.-An interesting question of law as to the ambit and scope of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, the `Act of 1985') and its overriding application over the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, the `Act of 1882'), with particular reference to Section 53A and Section 54 of the latter Act, arises for consideration in the present case. Reference to the basic facts which give rise to this proposition of law would be necessary and are as follows:
Facts:
2. NRC Limited is a company which was originally incorporated under the name and style of `National Rayon Corporation Limited' in the year 1946. However, subsequently, by an appropriate resolution of the Board of Directors, its name was changed to `NRC Limited' on 4th August, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the `Respondent- Company'). The Respondent-Company was engaged in the manufacture of viscos filament yarn, chemicals and allied products with its factory at Mohane, Kalyan, District Thane. As per the facts on record, the Respondent-Company was declared a `sick industrial company' in the year 1987, but as its net worth turned positive, vide order dated 10th January, 1994 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Restructuring (for short, the `BIFR'), it was discharged from the purview of the Act of 1985. The Respondent-Company had arranged finances and invested nearly Rs.86 crore in the financial year 2005-06 whereafter it started incurring losses because reduction in the customs duty seriously affected its business. Because of the financial crunch faced by the Respondent-Company, a consortium of five nationalized banks comprising of Punjab National Bank, Dena Bank, Canara Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and the Bank of Baroda had sanctioned a term loan as well as a working capital loan, secured by the current assets as well as the fixed assets of the Respondent-Company including the land in question. The total outstanding amount of loan, as on 31st March, 2006, was approximately Rs.147 crore. The Respondent-Company intensified its efforts to dispose of the surplus land so as to bring in additional funds required for financial restructuring. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 13th April, 2006 with `K. Raheja Universal Limited' renamed as `Raheja Universal Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the `Appellant- Company') for sale of about 344 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs.166.40 crore. After obtaining `No Objection Certificates' from the lending banks, an agreement dated 1st March, 2007 was signed between the parties and a sum of Rs.25 crore was paid by the Appellant-Company to the Respondent-Company. The balance consideration of Rs.141.40 crore was to be paid as per the terms of the agreement. In terms of the said agreement, the Appellant-Company was to pay the second instalment of Rs.25 crore, as and when required, to be utilized only to remove the first charge on the saleable land, the third instalment of Rs.48.90 crore was to be paid on receipt of `No Objection Certificate' from the labour, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and, on completion of fencing and the vacant possession of non-colony land and the fourth and final instalment of Rs.72.50 crore was to be paid subsequent thereto.
3. The Agreement dated 1st March, 2007 had postulated payment of the sale consideration in instalments. The parties continued further negotiations in regard to payment of the balance sale consideration. The Respondent-Company had requested the Appellant-Company to advance the payment of instalments. Thereafter, the parties came to an understanding and, in furtherance to such understanding, a supplementary deed to the agreement was signed on 29th September, 2007. As already noticed, the Appellant-Company had declined to pay the third instalment of the consideration payable, causing impediment to payments towards labour costs and other expenses of the Respondent-Company. T
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.