Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 257
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Chandurkar, J
BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. AND 3 ORS – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY 2 ORS – Respondent
WP/526/2015
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 Act of 2014 is constitutional, clarifying lease-hold rights without nullifying judicial decisions, thus maintaining legislative competence and not violating separation of powers.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 - Constitutional validity challenged - Petitioners argued that the Act transgresses separation of powers and is manifestly arbitrary - The Act clarifies that lease-hold rights remain with the Central Government despite vesting in the National Textile Corporation (NTC) - The Act does not nullify judicial decisions but alters the basis for them. (Paras 1, 21, 39)
(B) Legislative Competence - The legislature has the authority to enact validating laws to clarify existing statutes without prior judicial invalidation - The Act of 2014 is within legislative competence and does not violate constitutional provisions. (Paras 20, 39)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The Act of 2014 is intra vires and does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or manifest arbitrariness. (Paras 39)
(D)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Act of 2014 violates the separation of powers and whether it is manifestly arbitrary. (Paras 39) (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act of 2014 does not simply nullify previous judgments but clarifies the legal position regarding lease-hold rights, thus removing the basis for the earlier decisions. (Paras 39) (F)
Result: The challenge to the constitutionality of the Act of 2014 fails; rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. (Paras 40)
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Date on which the arguments concluded: 7th MAY 2024 Date on which the judgment is delivered: 10th JUNE 2024 JUDGMENT: (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.) INDEX Particulars Paragraphs A.
Historical facts 2 and 3 B.
Petitioners submissions C.
Respondents submissions 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 G.
Amendment and Validation Act, 2014 H.
Statement of Objects and Reasons 14 and 15 I.
Decision in Nareshkumar-II 16 and 17 J.
Grounds available for challenging plenary legislation K.
Presumption attached to constitutionality L.
Legislative competence – The primary concern 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.
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, title and interest of the owners of about sixteen textile mills stood transferred and vested absolutely in the Central Government.
- After such vesting, the same were transferred by the Central Government in favour of the NTC. In the meanwhile on 31st October 1999, the lease granted on 1st November 1900 expired through efflux of time. On 31st March 2000, the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short “the Act of 1999”) came into force. On 6th March 2001, the petitioners issued a notice calling upon the NTC to quit and vacate the subject property and handover its possession. Since there was no response to the aforesaid notice, on 17th July 2001 the petitioners filed T.E. & R. Suit No.428/451 of 2001 in the Small Causes Court seeking a decree of eviction with other consequential reliefs. The NTC in the meanwhile on 30th October 2002 filed a suit for specific performance and sought renewal of the lease deed dated 1st November 1900 being Suit No.6244 of 2002.
3]
- On 22nd November 2006, the suit filed by the petitioners under provision
