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

1971 Supreme(Raj) 100

Rajasthan High Court
Shinghal, J.
In the Matter of the Stoneware Pipe & Sanitary Fittings Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Company Suit No. 2 of 1968
Decided On : September 24, 1971

Advocates Appeared:
S.K.M. Lodha, for plaintiff; R.N. Munshi Government Advocate

Headnote:(a) Transfer of Property Act, Sec. 54—Transfer by Maharaja of former State of Jaipur— Plea that Maharaja was not bound by statutory law by virtue of his prerogative.(b) Prerogative of the Sovereign -Claim of prerogative in derogation of law—Such preroga-tive to be pleaded and proved by evidence—Prerogative is a rule of interpretation and not substantive law.(c) Transfer of Property Act. Sec. 53-A—Scope and applicability—Section does not confer a right to sue where transferee is deprived of possession.

       

SHINGHAL, J.— Plaintiff Messrs Stoneware Pipe and Sanitary Fittings Manufacturing Company Limited, Jaipur, was under members voluntary winding up. Shri Ramgopal Chokhani was appointed its liquidator, but he obtained an order on July 9, 1964 for the and for supervision by appointment of the Official Liquidator to be the liquidator, Court. The plaintiff has stated that Messrs Madanlal Kishore Singh of Kishangarh obtained the permission of the former Jaipur State on January 17, 1946 for establishing a factory for the manufacture of stoneware pipes and other sanitary fittings in Jaipur They and some others promoted a public company under the name and style of Messrs Stone Ware Pipes and Sanitary Fittings Manufacturing Company Limited, and it was incorporated on March 16, 1946, under the Jaipur Companies Act. The permission and the rights and concessions etc. granted to Messrs Madanlal Kishore Singh were transferred to the Company, which appointed Messrs Madanlal Kishore Singh as its managing agents.

2. The managing agents pursued their efforts to obtain allotment of a plot of land to the Company, in the industrial area, for the setting up of the Companys factory. Plot No. 3 which is the suit plot, was allotted for the purpose. The managing agents then addressed letter Ex 3 dated April 25, 1946 to the Director of Industries and Commerce for delivery of possession of the plot. The Director conveyed the sanction for the sale of that plot measuring 450 ft x 483 ft. for the establishment of a factory, at the rate of annas 4 per square yard. A sum of Rs. 6,114/13/6 was accordingly deposited by the plaintiff against cash receipt Ex 5 dated September 6, 1947. Possession of the plot was given to the plaintiff and it provided a wire fencing where necessary. The plaintiff has contended that it then became the full owner, in possession, of the suit plot.

3. The plaintiff has stated further that it constructed roads, buildings, sheds etc in and over the suit plot, installed machinery and other equipment at a cost of about Rs. 58,956/4/- and started the production. Its grievance is that although it was the owner in possession of the suit plot, the Urban Improvement Trust, defendant No. 2, illegally and forcibly occupied an area measuring 340 ft x 483 ft (18246| square yards) in May, 1958. That area has been marked ABFE in site-plan Ex 8, while the entire area purchased by the plaintiff has been marked ABCD in that plan. Shri Rampal Singh, who was a shareholder and ex-director of the Company, held a discussion with the Organizer, Industrial States. Industries and Supplies Department, in that connection, and the Organizer sent him reply Ex. 9 dated January 3, 1959 enquiring about his expectation of the price for the total area, excluding the area enclosed by the factory. While these efforts to recover the land were going on, an extra-ordinary meeting of the members of the Company was held on August 31, 1961 in which the aforesaid decision was taken to wind it up voluntarily and to appoint Shri Ramgopal Chokhani as the liquidator. Shri Chokhani found letter Ex. 11 of April 1962 pasted on the factory premises stating that as the plaintiff was under liquidation and had not fulfilled the conditions on which the land was alloted and there was no chance of the land being utilised for the purpose for which it was allotted, it stood forfeited its possession resumed by the Government with effect from the date of the order. Shri Chokhani lodged a protect under letter Ex. 12 dated April 23, 1962, but did not receive a reply. The plaintiff then gave a notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on June 30, 1962.

4. When the Official Liquidator took over the winding up proceedings under the supervision of the Court, he gave a notice (Ex 14) to the authorities concerned under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on December 22/30, 1965. No reply was received, and the Official Liquidator advertised the sale of the plot by public auction, along with the






















































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