PALGAON COTTON MILLS LIMITED Vs. JAIRAM JAIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions raise common question of law of the applicability of Article 261 of the Constitution of India to the proceedings in question.

(2.) The petitioner is the same in both the Revision petitions while the respondents are different. The respondents filed suits O.S. Nos. 17 and 19 of 1976 on the file of District Judge, Adilabad. The petitioner filed separate applications in such suit reqeusting stay of the trial of these suits. The Applications are founded on the ground that as per the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special provisions) Act No. XCVI of 1958 and as per the notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act, the present suits are liable to be stayed. The court below took the view that the said applications are not maintainable and dismissed the same. Against those orders these two revisions are filed.

(3.) The petitioner is a debtor who obtained loans from the plaintiff- respondent. The plaintiff-respondent filed suits for recovery of those debts. The plea of the petitioner is that as per Section 4 of the above Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra the trial of the suits is liable to be stayed. The preamble of the Bombay Act indicates that the Act was passed "to make temporary provisions for industrial relations and other matters to enable the State Government to conduct, or to provide loan guarantee or financial assistance for the conduct of, certain industrial undertakings as a measure of preventing unemployment or of unemployment relief". Section 4 of the said Act empowers the Government to make provision for facilities for temporary relief to industrial units. The relevant provision Section 4 (1) (a) (fv) reads as follows :