REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO……………/2011

(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 11162 of 2008)

Custodian of Textiles Undertaking, Bombay

…..Appellant

Versus

Hall & Anderson Ltd. & Ors.

…..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 14.12.2007 in FMA No.761/05 and CAN No.7885/07 passed by

the High Court of Calcutta affirming the judgment and order of the

Learned Single Judge dated 6.1.2005 in CR No. 10289(W)/83 by

which the Learned Single Judge has held that the appellant cannot

take the management or possession of the suit premises, No.31,

Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, in view of the provisions of the Textile

1

Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, (hereinafter

called the `Act 1983’).

3.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Hall &

Anderson Ltd. (hereinafter called ‘Hall’), incorporated under the

Indian Companies Act, 1913, came into existence on 8.11.1946 and

started primarily a departmental store business on the premises at

No.31, Chowringhee Road (hereinafter called the premises styled as

Hall & Anderson). Hall purchased the textile mill situated at Globe

Mills Passage (Lower Parel) from M/s. Madhusudan Mills Ltd. on

12.6.1950 and commenced business of manufacturing and selling of

cotton. The name of the company M/s. Hall & Anderson Ltd. was

changed to M/s Shree Madhusudan Mills Ltd., having its registered

office at the premises on 21.7.1959. Amalgamation of Profit & Loss

Account was prepared henceforth for M/s Shree Madhusudan Mills

Ltd. from 1970.

4.

In 1976, the business of departmental store was stopped due to

economic loss and after winding up of the said business, the premises

was let out on rent. In 1989, because of strike by workers of textiles

mills, several mills suffered losses and it became difficult to run the

2

business and therefore, the Government after having due deliberations

with Reserve Bank of India and other authorities first came with the

Ordinance and later on it was replaced by Act 1983.

5.

The respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.10289/83

before the Calcutta High Court challenging the provisions of the Act

1983 and an injunction was granted by the High Court vide order

dated 26.10.1983 restraining the present appellant from interfering

with bank accounts relating to the property business as well as textile

undertaking business. It was during pendency of the business that

Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1995 came into existence

and the mills stood acquired. M/s Shree Madhusudan Mills Ltd. was

renamed as Hall on 11.2.1999. Learned Single Judge allowed the said

writ petition vide judgment and order dated 6.1.2005 holding that the

suit premises situated at Calcutta was by no means related to the

textile undertakings and therefore, it could not be part and parcel of

textile undertakings and not covered by the said Acts 1983 or 1995.

6.

Being aggrieved, the present appellant preferred the FMA

No.761/05 which has been dismissed by the Division Bench, and in

concurrence with the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal.

3

7.

Shri G.E. Vahanvati, Learned Attorney General for India has

submitted that the Division Bench, as well as the Learned Single

Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, failed to appreciate the purpose

of taking over the management of textile undertakings. Because of

mismanagement and strike of workers, the textile undertakings

became unworkable and the Government of India in public interest

and taking recourse to the provisions of Articles 39B & 39C of the

Constitution appointed a Committee to examine the issue and after

considering its report with consultation and considering the guidance

of the Reserve Bank of India, it took up a decision to take o