JUDGMENT - S.P. BHARUCHA, J.:---By the order under appeal the learned Single Judge, upon the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs, appointed the Court Receiver of immovable property at Jaipur belonging to the 1st defendants and of goods, stocks machineries and moveables therein and of book-debts. He directed the Court Receiver to appoint the 1st defendants his agents in respect of the machinery, fittings, fixtures and immovable property at Jaipur on such terms and Conditions as he thought proper. Further, he gave liberty to the Court Receiver to sell the machines and the moveables and retain the sale proceeds with himself in the event that the 1st defendants were not willing or not in a position to accept the terms of the agency. The 1st defendants are in appeal.

2. The plaintiffs are the State Bank of India. The suit is filed against the 1st defendants for recovery of the sum of Rs. 13,59,49,986.59 due by the 1st defendants under a cash credit account and the sum of Rs. 1,16,58,682.59 due under a term loan account and interest thereon. The suit prays for a declaration that the aforementioned sums are secured by a valid and subsisting equitable mortgage in respect of two immoveable properties at Bombay and land admeasuring 35,380 square meters with structures thereon at Jaipur.

3. It is an admitted position that, by reason of the provisions of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, the textile undertakings of the 1st defendants situated at Bombay have been taken over and vest in the Central Government. The only security in the form of immoveable property which is, therefore, available to the plaintiffs is the immoveable property at Jaipur.

4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that, by reason of the provisions of section 8(1)(c) of the said Taking Over of Management Act, a receiver could not be appointed of the immoveable property at Jaipur. The learned Single Judge, upon an interpretation of section 8 rejected the contention. He also rejected the contention that, this being a case of an equitable mortgage in which the mortgagee has no right to possession, no receiver could be appointed. He came to the conclusion that a case for the appointment of a receiver had been made out by the plaintiffs.

5. Section 2(d) of the said Taking Over of Management Act defines "textile undertakings" or "the textile undertakings" to mean an undertaking specified in the second column of the First Schedule thereto. Sub-section (e) of section 2 defines "textile company" to mean a company (being a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956) specified in the third column of the First Schedule, as owning the undertaking specified in the corresponding entry in the second column of that Schedule. The First Schedule, at Item Nos. 9 and 10, refers to the two undertakings of the 1st defendants to Bombay and, in the corresponding entry in column 3, refers to the 1st defendants as the owners thereof. Section 8 reads thus :

"8. Application of Act 1 of 1956.---(1) So long as the management of the textile undertaking of a textile company remains vested in the Central Government under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 or in the memorandum of articles of association of such company, ---

(a) it shall not be lawful for the shareholders of the textile company or any other person to nominate or appoint any person to be a Director of such textile company in relation to such undertaking;

(b) no resolution affecting (whether directly of indirectly) such undertaking which is passed at any meeting of a shareholders of the textile company on or after the appointed day shall be given effect to unless approved by the Central Government;

(c) no proceeding for the winding up of the textile company or for the appointment of a liquidator or receiver in respect thereof shall lie in any Court except with the consent of the Central Government.

(2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document