JAIPUR UDYOG LIMITED Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Jaipur Udyog Limited, Sawai -Madhopur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to the Company, has been declared by the State of Rajashan as a relief undertaking under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act). By subsequent notifications, issued from time to time, in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Rajasthan declared as follows:

(2.) SEVENTEEN civil suits have been filed against the Company, which is a subsisting relief undertaking under the present notification upto 30th September, 1980 and the substantial question of law which arises for my consideration is whether the Courts at Chandigarh, i.e., the Courts beyond the territorial limits of Rajasthan, can give effect to the notifications issued by the Rajasthan Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act in order to stay the suits or whether the Courts outside the limits of Rajasthan State can hold that the notifications issued by the Rajasthan Government would not be taken notice of on the basis of territorial jurisdiction in view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE counsel for the Company has urged that the Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in not arriving at the correct conclusion and in usurping the jurisdiction to proceed with the suits which deserved to be stayed. In highlighting the argument, he has submitted that the scope of Article 245(1) of the Constitution is entirely different and has been misunderstood by the Court below. While a State Legislature can make law for whole or any part of the State, Article 245(1) does not create any bar in the Courts situate outside that State to give effect to the law of another State and this would be very much different from saying that the legislature of one State cannot make law for whole or part of another State. In elaborating the argument, he has urged that the State of Haryana has enacted the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976, whereunder agricultural labourers, rural artisans or marginal farmers have been given special protection against recovery of debts from them. If such a farmer who is entitled to protection incurs a debt in the State of Haryana and crosses over to the State of Rajasthan, where no similar law is applicable then the creditor will have the choice either to file a suit in the State of Haryana on the basis that the debt was incurred within that State or to file a suit in the State of Rajasthan where the debtor resided. In the two situations, if the suit is filed in the State of Haryana, the debtor will take the defence of being an agricultural labourer/marginal farmer, with the result that the suit against him Will be dismissed but if knowing the fate the creditor files a suit in Rajasthan, the question would arise whether the objection that the suit is not competent against him on the basis of Haryana law would be noticed and gone into by the Courts in Rajasthan or not. It is the stand of the counsel for the Petitioner that the Courts in Rajasthan, will have to give way to the Haryana law as the protection given by the Haryana law is to an agricultural labourer/marginal farmer, irrespective of the fact whether at a given moment he was living in the State of Haryana or outside it.