W.A. No. 2034 of 2011. Case: Somasundaram Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., 'Soma Vilas', 1606, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 018 Rep. by its Managing Director, P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar and Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., 'Soma Vilas', 1606, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 018 Rep. by its Managing Director, P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs Union of India (UOI), Rep. by The Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi 110011, The National Textile Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, Having its Registered Office at: Scope Complex, Core-IV, 7, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003 and The National Textile Corpn. (Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry) Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, NTC House, P.O. Box 2409, 35B, Somasundaram Mill Road, Coimbatore 641 009 [Alongwith W.A. Nos. 2035 and 2036 of 2011]. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.A. No. 2034 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant:Mr. Arvind P. Datar for M/s. Sai Bharath & Ilan and For Respondents: Mr. M. Ravindran Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. A.S. Vijayaragavan SCGSC Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan Senior Advocate for Mr. C.V. Vijayakumar |
| Judges | Mr. M.Y. Eqbal and Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. |
| Issue | Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 - Sections 3, 4, 8 and 18; Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995; Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975 - Section 5; Sick Textiles Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1972; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19 and 21 |
| Judgement Date | November 18, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 27.07.2011 in W.P.Nos.14823 of 2005, 14824 of 2005 and 13381 of 2009, whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.14823 of 2005, 14824 of 2005 is one P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, who is the Managing Director of Two Spinning Mills, he is also the first petitioner in W.P.No.13381 of 2009. The second and third petitioners in W.P.No.13381 of 2009 are the Spinning Mills themselves, which are companies registered under the Indian Companies Act and represented by their Managing Director Mr. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar.
3. Prayer in W.P.No.14823 of 2005, to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 as amended by the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 as unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal and that the nationalization and continuance thereof and sale of assets of Kaleeswarar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. is unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to return the movable and immovable properties of Kaleeswarar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Prayer in W.P.No.14824 of 2005, is identical to W.P.No.14823 of 2005, which has been filed by Somasundaram Mills Pvt. Ltd.
4. Prayer in W.P.No.13381 of 2009, is for a declaration, to declare Section 5 of the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975, to the extent it inserts the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974, in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, as being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution and hence ultra vires.
5. The case of the appellant was that during 1972, the Sick Textiles Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1972, was promulgated and the management of the Mills in question were taken over by the first respondent and in 1974, the Ordinance was replaced by the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1974 (the Act). By virtue of such Act, the Mills in question were nationalized.
6. According to the appellants that though writ petitions were earlier filed by the appellants, challenging the Act which were dismissed and the writ appeals were also dismissed, due to changed circumstances, the appellants are entitled to maintain these writ petitions and in this regard the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 1. It is further contended that by virtue of the amending act, it has enabled the respondents to sell the properties without...
To continue reading
Request your trial