LAWS(DLH)-1970-2-14

BHARAT KUMAR CHINUBHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 10, 1970
BHARAT KUMAR CHINUBHAI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution is to an order made by D the Central Government under Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 65 of 1951 taking over the management of the Industrial undertaking known as the New Maneckchock Spinning and Weaving Company Limited Ahmedabad for a period of one year from the date of the publication of the order in official Gazette viz. 14-2-1969.

(2.) The petitioner is the Managing Agent of the Company since 1957, In his petition he also laid claim to be the owner of the company, but that is evidently not correct even though his family is perhaps the holder of majority of shares therein. According to his allegations in the petition, the company had once seen better days, but from 1958 onwards the years of loss alternated with the years of profit till in 1965 its balance-sheet showed a gross loss of about 19 lacs of rupees and the position in the years 1966 and 1967 was no better. On 10th October 1967, the Central Government having formed an opinion that there had been or was likely to be substantial fall in volume of production in respect of cotton textiles manufactured by the company for which in its opinion there was no justification, appointed a committee consisting of three persons for the purpose of making a full and complete investigation into circumstances of the case.

(3.) The Petitioner alleged tha't he and the Directors of the company protested against Government's action but their protests were dis-regarded and they were asked to appear before the Investigation Committee on 24th January 1968. After a preliminary discussion at the meeting, the management submitted to the Committee a tentative scheme for the future working of the company but nothing more was heard after that from the Government or the Committee. Meanwhile the Committee kept on calling and examining behind the back of the petitioner several persons e.g. representatives of labour union, selling agents and brokers etc.