Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Chandurkar, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 526 of 2015
Decided On : 10-06-2024
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kishore Jain, Mr. Darshit K. Jain, Mrs. Divya D. Jain and Mr. Udit Raghuwanshi, Advocates for the Petitioners.; Mr. Devang G. Vyas, Senior Advocate, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Advait M. Sethana, Ms. Shruti Vyas, Adv. S. Shah, Ms. Niyanta Trivedi and Mr. Sandeep Raman, Advocates for the Respondents.
The amendment validated leasehold rights of textile undertakings to the Central Government, not violating separation of powers or exhibiting arbitrariness.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 - Constitutional validity challenged - The Court upheld the Act, affirming that it clarifies lease-hold rights vested in the Central Government and does not transgress separation of powers or exhibit manifest arbitrariness - The Act of 2014 was found to remove issues of eviction decrees against the National Textile Corporation for textile undertakings - The challenge based on Article 14 was rejected as lacking merit. (Paras 1, 39)
(B) Legislative Competence - The legislature possesses the authority to enact laws with retrospective effect, removing the basis of prior judicial decisions, without violating the Constitution. (Paras 19, 20, 29)
(C) Judicial Review - The presumption of constitutionality applies to legislative acts, and the judiciary should refrain from questioning legislative wisdom absent clear constitutional violations. (Paras 19, 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical facts surrounding the textile legislation case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners challenge the act of 2014's constitutionality. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents defend the constitutionality of the act of 2014. (Para 5) |
| 4. hearing and consideration of arguments. (Para 6) |
| 5. description of legislation related to textile undertakings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. summary of the decision in nareshkumar-i. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. implications of nareshkumar-ii on tenancy rights. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. legal grounds for challenging plenary legislation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. presumption of constitutionality in legislative actions. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 10. legislative competence on the topic at hand. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 11. examination of the act of 2014's adherence to separation of powers. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 12. considering the ground of manifest arbitrariness. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 13. legislative intentions and their implications. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 14. evaluating claims of the act serving only to nullify eviction decrees. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 15. final conclusions on the constitutionality and implications of the act. (Para 39) |
JUDGMENT
A. S. Chandurkar, J.
INDEX
Particulars | Paragraphs | |
A. | Historical facts | 2 and 3 |
B. | Petitioners submissions | 4 |
C. | Respondents submissions | 5 |
D. | Legislation relating to textile undertakings | 7 to 9 |
E. | Relevant provisions of the Act of 1974 and 1995 | 10 and 11 |
F. | Decision in Nareshkumar-I | 12 |
G. | Amendment and Validation Act, 2014 | 13 |
H. | Statement of Objects and Reasons | 14 and 15 |
I. | Decision in Nareshkumar-II | 16 and 17 |
J. | Grounds available for challenging plenary legislation | 18 |
K. | Presumption attached to constitutionality | 19 |
L. | Legislative competence - The primary concern | 20 |
M. | Act of 2014 whether breaches the doctrine of separation of powers | 21 to 27 |
N. | Validating Act | 28 to 31 |
O. | Ground of manifest arbitrariness | 32 to 36 |
P. | Intention only to nullify eviction decrees | 37 and 38 |
Q. | Conclusion. | 39 |
1. The constitutional validity of the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, it is prayed that the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 as amended be struck down as being invalid and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. A further prayer is to strike down the provisions of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 as amended being invalid and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
A. Historical Facts:
2. Premises admeasuring 45,022 square yards as well as 153 square yards bearing Survey No. 17 of Parel Sewri Division, Parel was owned by Trustees of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Settlement Trust. An Indenture of Lease dated 1st November 1900 came to be executed between the said Trustees and Maneckjee Petit Manufacturing Company Limited for a period of 99 years starting from 1st November 1900. Thereafter, M/s. Digvijay Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. became the successor in title of the said Company. A Deed of Conveyance dated 24th July 1951 came to be executed and the petitioner no.1-M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. became the absolute owner of the said property. In view of breaches committed of the terms of the lease deed, the petitioners issued a notice to the National Textile Corporation Limited (for short, NTC) and M/s Digvijay Textile Mills Limited on 18th February 1991 and terminated the lease deed dated 1st November 1900. On 16th April 1991, the petitioners filed R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 758/2049 of 1991 in the Small Causes Court seeking recovery of possession of the leased premises. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 21st June 2000. However, subsequently the ex-parte decree was set aside on 21st June 2013 and suit was restored.
The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act of 1995) came into force from 9th September, 1995. In view of the provisions of that Act, the right, tit
