LAWS(DLH)-1973-12-9

TRIVENI ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On December 20, 1973
TRIVENI ENGINIRING WORKS LIMITED Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises interesting questions of law in relation to the implementation of and the rights and liabilities arising under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter for convenience referred to as the Monopolies Act, and the construction of its provisions.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, the Trieveni Engineering Works Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2, Shri Kanhaya Lal Sawhney, is a Director of petitioner No. 1 with effect from February 26,1971. He was previously a Director of the Upper India Sugar Mills Limited but on that company's amalgamation with petitioner No. 1 became the latter's Director. The amalgamation of the two companies came about as a result of a formal order of this court dated February 8, 1971 and was effective as from the close of business hours on January 31, 1970.

(3.) The Monopolies Act came into force on June 1, 1970. By virtue of the provisions of Section 26 of this Act, inter alia, inter-connected companies to which Part-A of Chapter III of the Monopolies Act applied were to get themselves registered within sixty days of the commencement of the Act or the date on which that part became first applicable to them or within such further time as the Central Government may, on sufficient cause being shown, allow. Section 20 in Part-1 of Chapter III of the Monopolies Act provides that Part-A applied to, inter alia, an undertaking if the total value of its own assets, or its own assets together with the assets of inter-connected undertakings, is not less than 20 crores of rupees. Petitioner No. 1 by itself was not an undertaking which fell within the ambit of Section 20 of the Monopolies Act. By a letter No. 21/ 24/71-M(11) dated July 9, 1971 the Central Government wrote to the petitioner company that on the basis of information available with the Company Law Board it appeared to the Government that Section 20 of the Monopolies Act is, prima facie, applicable to the undertaking of the petitioner company. Alongwith this letter the petitioner company was also supplied with a brief summary of the information collected by the Central Government. It was mentioned in this letter that it had been noticed that the petitioner company had not applied for registration under section 26 of the Monopolies Act and so, it was called upon to show cause within 21 days of the date of the aforesaid letter why action under section 48(2) of the Act should not be taken against it. According to the information supplied to the petitioner company the following companies were being regarded as interconnected with the petitioner-company, namely,