NAVNIT R KAMANI Vs. R R KAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MORE than a thousand brimming eyes are waiting to replace the tears of despair by tears of relief. No less than 600 wronged workers of a once prosperous industrial unit (Kamani Tubes Limited (KTL)) induced or reduced to 'sickness' are on their toes to resort to self-help to restore the lost source of their butterless bread. Their pens are quivering to write a new chapter in the saga of workers' struggle for finding their true 'identity' and 'dignity'. Their dream is coming true with the enlightened and refreshing approach of the Central and State Governments, and the concerned Nationalized Banks (Bank of India, Canara Bank and Dena Bank), coupled with prompt, efficient and swift decision making on the part of the BIFR*1 and the IDBI (Industrial Development Bank of India). And with the consensus of all the parties (which is the most heartening feature) who have risen above narrow individual interests by not opposing the workers' scheme in order to promote the larger National interest of reviving the industry, augmenting the National product and providing employment to hundreds of starving workers (three of whom became martyrs to the cause by committing suicide).

(2.) INTERNAL discord gave rise to disputes and litigations between different branches of a family headed by a pioneering and successful industrialist Shri Ramjibhai Kamani in the wake of his demise, which culminated in SLP No. 15228 of 1983 wherein all the concerned members of the family were impleaded. When the said matter came up before this Court it was impressed upon the parties that the internecine conflict between the warring factions deserved to be speedily resolved, not only in their own interest, and for saving the name and honour of the founder, but also to ensure that neither the industrial units nor the workers employed in the industries which were controlled by one or the other branch of the industrial family, were ruined. A retired Judge of the Supreme Court Justice A. C. Gupta was accordingly prevailed upon to accept the assignment of resolving the innumerable problems in the larger interest of the warring factions as also in order to protect the interests of the community and the workers in August 1984. The learned Mediator has invested considerable time, effort and accumen in order to resolve the problems presented in the course of the proceedings and has successfully disentangled the economic mess to a considerable extent. This is evident from the fact that after the learned Mediator came on the scene Income-tax and Capital Gains-tax dues to the tune of over Rs. 48 lakhs and over Rs. 35 lakhs respectively have been paid.

(3.) BY an order of this Court, dated 13/10/1987 in CMP 3805/87 (reported in 1987(5) JT 150), this Court directed the BIFR to file a feasibility report with respect to the scheme presented by the workers for the revival of KTL. This Court also directed the BIFR to hear the workers as well as the different groups of Kamani family before making its recommendations. As per this direction the Board held a number of hearings which were attended inter alia, by representatives of KEU, Financial Institutions, Banks, State Government, Central Government and different groups of the Kamani family. IDBI, an apex institution in the field of term lending and one of the operating agencies of BIFR, was entrusted with the examination of KEU's scheme particularly with regard to technical health of the plant and time required to run it, various assumptions made in respect of the parameters of costs/prices, estimates of production pattern vis-a-vis projection of future demand, correctness of cost of production, working capital requirement, projected operating cash surplus etc. IDBI submitted its report which was discussed in the subsequent hearings and the views of the concerned agencies, such as, Banks, State Government, Central Government, and the commitments regarding reliefs and concessions that would be available from these agencies, were obtained. On being so required IDBI subsequently revised its projections and viability estimates. Based on the above, BIFR prepared its Feasibility Report and submitted it to this Court. After considering the report of BIFR, and hearing various parties and with the consent of the parties, this Court vide its order dated 20/04/1988 directed, inter alia, that the matter be placed before BIFR for consideration whether it should proceed to pass an order in terms of the proposed scheme as revised in consultation with IDBI under S. 18(4) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Board was requested to arrive at a decision after giving notice to all the concerned parties. The relevant part of the order deserves to be quoted :-