3
National
Textile Corpn. (Dr & P) Ltd. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan & Ors. [2008] Insc
103 (28 January 2008)
Dr.
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
(Arising
out of SLP (C) No. 20337 of 2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2008 (Arising
out of SLP (C) No.7681 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. SLP ( C) No. 20337 of
2006
1.
Leave granted.
2.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Learned Single Judge of the
Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench dismissing this Civil Writ Petition filed
by the appellant.
3.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The
Sick Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1974 (in short the Act)
became operative with effect from 1.4.1974.
One
Textile Undertaking i.e. Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd. Bewar vested in the Central
Government under the Act. The same was transferred to the National Textile
Corporation (in short the Corporation) and thereafter to the present
appellant which is a Subsidiary of the Corporation i.e. National Textile
Corporation (Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan) Ltd. Appellants stand was that in
terms of Section 3 of the Act, with effect from the appointed date i.e.
1.4.1974, every sick textile undertaking and the right title and interest of
the owner in relation to such textile undertaking stood vested absolutely in
the Central Government and in turn to the Corporation. Section 4 of the Act
sets out the general effects of vesting. Under Section 5 of the Act, deals with
the liability of the owner of the sick textile undertaking and clearly provides
that every liability other than the liability specified in sub-section (2) of
Section 5 of the owner of a sick textile undertaking in respect of any period
prior to the appointed date was a liability of the owner and shall be
enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the
Corporation. On 25.5.1978, respondent- Bank filed claim before the Commissioner
for Payment (in short the Commissioner) raising demand of about
Rs.34.72 lakhs. After examining the claim the Commissioner allowed the claim to
the extent of about Rs.21.22 lakhs i.e. the amount outstanding against the
owner on 31.3.1974 i.e. a day prior to the appointed date. The claim towards
interest was rejected by the Commissioner. An appeal was also preferred by the
respondent-bank before the District Judge under Section 23 of the Act. By order
dated 20.8.1987 the District Judge held that for a period subsequent to the
appointed date liability would be of the owner and held that respondent was
entitled to interest at the contractual rate for a period subsequent to
31.3.1974. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to work out the details.
4. The
order was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court. The controversy was
restricted to the question of payment subsequent to 31.3.1974. The order was
unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court and this Court. The
Commissioner passed an award for an amount of about Rs.16.70 lakhs. Again an
appeal was preferred before the District Judge wherein their stand was that the
Commissioner had not calculated the amount of interest as per the earlier
directions of the District Judge and the interest was to be calculated on the
basis of six monthly rest. The District Judge allowed the appeal and again sent
the matter back to the Commissioner. A revision was filed before the High Court
on the ground that the District Judge had erred in awarding interest after
1.4.1974 on the liability of the erstwhile owner overlooking the position of
law as contained in Sections 3, 4, 5 & 11. A transfer petition was filed
before this Court with a request to stay further proceedings in different High
Courts as common points were urged.
5.
This Court by order dated 15.3.2004 directed the High Court to follow the
decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.2314 of 2000 and connected matters.
An application was filed by one of the respondents in TP Nos.155-58 of 2004.
This
court clarified that the matters pending in the High Court would await the
decision in which the issues arising for decision are the same or similar to
those involved in Civil Appeal No. 2314 of 2000 on 21.7.2005. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition as noted above. It was of the view that the matters
agitated before the High Court have already been concluded by the High Court.
6. In
support of the appeal, Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General, submitted
that unfortunately there was no appearance before the High Court because of
some mis- understanding. In any event the decisions of this Court in State Bank
of Indore v. Commissioner of Payment &
Ors.[2004(11) SCC 516] and in National Textile Coprn. (Guj.) Ltd. v. State Bank
of India & Ors. [2006(7)SCC 542] have not been taken note of.
7.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Bank on the other hand submitted that
the issue had attained finality and therefore the High Court was justified in
dismissing the writ petition.
8. In
State Bank of Indore v. Commissioner of Payment &
Ors.[2004(11)SCC 516] the Bank had filed the appeal before this Court. It was
inter alia observed in the said case as follows:
A
glance at the provisions of the Act, extracted hereinabove, shows that by
virtue of Section 3 the right, title and interest of the owner in sick textile
undertakings stands transferred to and vests in the Central Government. Section
4 provides for the effect of such vesting. It shows that the liability, which
vests in the Central Government, is only liability specified under sub-section
(2) of Section 5. This position is further clarified by Section 5(1) which
states that except for liabilities mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 5
all other liabilities would continue to be the liabilities of the owner of the
sick textile undertakings and shall be enforceable against the owner and not
against the Central Government or the National Textile Corporation. Thus by
virtue of Section 5(1) the remedy for recovery of any liability is against the
owner. Undoubtedly, the word liability would include not just the
loan amounts but also the amounts due by way of interest of such loan amounts.
Sub-section
(2) of Section 5 specifies which liabilities are taken over by the Central
Government. Sub-section (2)( a ) talks of loans advanced by the Central
Government or the State Government. Thus, the legislature is now making a
distinction between the terms liability and loan. When the
term loan is used it is specified that the loans would be
together with interest due thereon. The same clarification can be
found even in Section 5(2)( b ). This indicates the intention of the
legislature. Thus even though the term liability includes liability
for the interest amounts also, the term loan does not include the
interest amount unless specified otherwise in the Act. This position is
fortified by Section 9 wherein on the amounts paid to the owner interest at the
rate of 4% is also payable. Thus, where the legislature wanted to specify that
certain amounts would carry interest, it has done so specifically.
Section
21 provides that the amounts set out in the Second Schedule are to be paid in
priority. The relevant portion of the Second Schedule reads as follows:
THE
SECOND SCHEDULE (See Sections 21, 22, 23 and 27) Order of priorities for the
discharge of liabilities in respect of a sick textile undertaking PART A
Post-Takeover Management Period Category I
(a)
Loans advanced by a bank.
(b)
Loans advanced by an institution other than a bank.
(c)
Any other loan.
(d)
Any credit availed of for purpose of trade or manufacturing operations.
Category
II
(a)
Revenue, taxes, cesses, rates or any other dues to the Central Government or a
State Government.
(b)
Any other dues. Thus, the heading of the Second Schedule provides
priorities for the discharge of liabilities. The term
liability as stated above would include interest. It would include a
loan.
It
would also include credits availed of. It would include revenue, taxes, cesses,
rates and other dues. However, the payment in priority is for a loan. The
distinction in language makes it very clear that what was to be paid in
priority was only the amount of the loan i.e. the principal amount and not the
interest amount due thereon. Of course, payments towards interest would remain
liabilities. But for recovery of that the remedy would be to proceed against
the owner/surety.
It is
thus clear that the interest amounts are not to be paid in priority under the
provisions of this Act. In this view, strictly speaking, even interest up to 31-3-1974 was not payable in priority. However, as the
respondents have not come up in appeal we see no reason to interfere with that
portion of the impugned judgment which directs payments of interest up to 31-3-1974.
9.
Again in National Textile Coprn. (Guj.) Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors.
(2006(7) SCC 542) after referring to State Bank of Indores case (supra) this Court
observed as follows:
There
exists a difference between a loan and liability; whereas the principal amount
would come within the purview of priority claim, claim of interest would not.
The
High Court in its impugned judgment relied upon State Bank of India v. Edward Textile Mills Ltd. The
said decision was reversed by this Court in State Bank of Indore v. Commr. of Payments, holding:
(SCC p. 522, paras 9-11) Thus, the heading of the Second Schedule provides
priorities for the discharge of liabilities. The term
liability as stated above would include interest. It would include a
loan.
It
would also include credits availed of. It would include revenue, taxes, cesses,
rates and other dues. However, the payment in priority is for a loan. The
distinction in language makes it very clear that what was to be paid in
priority was only the amount of the loan i.e. the principal amount and not the
interest amount due thereon. Of course, payments towards interest would remain
liabilities. But for recovery of that the remedy would be to proceed against
the owner/surety.
This
Court has in Industrial Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Cannanore Spg. and Wvg.
Mills Ltd. held that by virtue of the provisions of the Act the liability of
the principal debtor and that of the surety does not come to an end. It is held
that if the compensation to be paid by virtue of Section 21 and the Second
Schedule does not satisfy the full claim then the creditor is not barred from
filing a civil suit for the balance. Further, in Punjab National Bank v. State
of U.P. it has been held that even though mode of recovery, against a surety,
may be affected the liability of the principal debtor and the guarantor does
not get affected by the provision of this Act. Not only are these authorities
binding us but we are in complete agreement with what is laid down therein.
It is
thus clear that the interest amounts are not to be paid in priority under the
provisions of this Act. In this view, strictly speaking, even interest up to 31-3-1974 was not payable in priority.
10. We
find that there was no appearance before the High Court and, therefore, the
relevance and applicability of the two decisions presently relied upon had not
been considered.
11.
We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court
to hear the matter afresh and decide the matter in the light of what has been
stated in State Bank of Indores case (supra) and State Bank
of Indias case (supra). It is made
clear that the parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their
respective stand. SLP(C) No.7681 of 2006 12. Leave granted.
So far
as this appeal is concerned, the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner
by the impugned order of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench. It is needless
to highlight that the Commissioner while deciding the issues afresh shall keep
in view the decisions in State Bank of Indores case (supra) and State Bank of Indias case (supra).
13.
Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
