SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Gau) 1020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.
Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. – Respondents
C. Rev. Pet. No. 263 of 2009
Decided On: 21.07.2011

Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate, P. Bhowmik and D. Nath, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant:G.P. Bhowmik, S.S. Roy, Advocates and D. Baruah, Amicus Curiae

Headnote:

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 116 – Assam State Industrial Relief Undertaking Act, 1984 – Section 22, 4(b) – Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – Acqusition Issue – Whether the word appeal, which appears in Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, shall be read as an application – When no period of limitation is prescribed by a statute for an appeal, which can be preferred to a Court by a person, who is aggrieved by the decision of an adjudicating authority, whether it is possible for the Court, while dealing with such an appeal to hold the appeal time-barred or to refuse to give relief on the ground of laches or negligence – Held, when one reverts to the present revision, it becomes clear that the expression appeal, which appears in Section 22(8), is an appeal and not an application – Since an appeal, under Section 22(8), has been provided to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction without having been restricted by any period of limitation, it would be treated as an appeal provided, under the Code, to a Court subordinate to the High Court and to such an appeal, period of limitation, as prescribed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply. – Appeal was preferred against the order of the Commissioner long after one month, which is the prescribed period for an appeal under the Code to a Court subordinate to the High Court. – Such an appeal was, thus, not maintainable – District Judge, therefore, fell in error in taking the view that since no period of limitation having been prescribed for the appeal in the Act, the appeal cannot be treated to be time barred. – Revision Succeeds

JUDGMENT

Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. The most prominent question, which this revision begs for an answer, is: Whether the word 'appeal', which appears in Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, shall be read as an 'application'? Amongst others, the other important question, which this revision seeks an answer, is: When no period of limitation is prescribed by a statute for an 'appeal', which can be preferred to a Court by a person, who is aggrieved by the decision of an adjudicating authority, whether it is possible for the Court, while dealing with such an 'appeal' to hold the appeal time-barred or to refuse to give relief on the ground of laches or negligence? The material facts, which have led to this revision, raising, amongst others, the questions, which I have posed above, may, in a nutshell, be set out as under:

(i) The petitioner No. 1, namely, M/s. Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. (in short, 'petitioner company') is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Rajgarh Road, Guwahati, with the petitioner No. 2 as its Managing Director. The respondent No. 1, namely, M/s. North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd., (in short, 'the respondent company') is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Hajobari, Chandrapur, Guwahati.

(ii) On 09.11.1982, the respondent Company had received orders from the petitioner Company for supply of goods. Having made supplies, respondent Company raised three bills for diverse sums of money, namely, bill, dated 20.01.1983, for Rs. 84,595/-, bill, dated 26.01.1983, for Rs. 86,812.13/- and bill, dated 31.03.1983, for Rs. 21,433.81/-. The bills of the respondent Company had not been, according to the respondent Company, fully paid by the petitioner Company.

(iii) The petitioner Company was declared as a sick company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Re-organization under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, popularly knows as 'BIFR', necessitating its rejuvenation and rehabilitation. This necessity was sought to be filled up by the State by enacting Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, which came into force, on 12.09.1990, by virtue of a notification, dated 24.09.1990, under the Assam Gazette (Extra-ordinary) on 25.09.1990. This apart, Section 4(b) of the Assam State Industrial Relief Undertaking Act, 1984, (in short, 'the Act of 1984'), made all contracts of Ashok Paper Mill Ltd. (i.e., the petitioner company) with the respondent Company unenforceable in law and the Act of 1984 continued till 04.01.1992. Consequently, during the period, when the Act of 1984 remained in force, respondent Company could not file any suit, in any Court of competent jurisdiction, against Ashok Paper Mill (i.e., the petitioner company) for recovery of the money, which the respondent Company claimed to be its dues.

(iv) By taking resort to the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, the respondent Company lodged, in terms of Section 16thereof, a claim before the Commissioner, appointed under the Act, for payment of principal amount with interest. By an order, dated 17.08.94, the Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,58,375/- towards principal amount. As no interest was awarded by the Commissioner, the respondent Company filed a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 4210/1997, whereby the respondent Company sought for a direction to be issued to the Commissioner for passing necessary order for payment of interest as per the representation, dated 16.07.1997, submitted by the respondent Company to the Commissioner. This writ petition, i.e., Civil Rule No. 4210/97, was disposed of by directing the Commissioner to c





































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top