Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. vs. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

SCR Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 472
Year/Volume: 2011/ Volume 14
Date of Judgment: 05 September 2011
Petitioner: THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2011 INSC 651
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Respondent: NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /7448/2011
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - s.3(1J(a) & (b) - Exemption from application of the Act 1999 - Claim for - Tenability - Status of appellant- National Textile Corporation - Textile Undertaking 'P' had tenancy rights in the premises in question - Act 1995 came into effect leading to statutory transfer of the tenancy rights of Textile undertaking 'P' to Central Government and thereafter to appellant-NTC - Respondent-owner of the premises filed eviction suit against the appellant - Appellant claimed protection under exemption provisions in the Act 1999 on the ground that the Central Government still remained tenant and appellant was merely its agent - Held: The Central Government and the appellant are separate legal entities and not synonymous - Appellant is being controlled by the provisions of the Act 1995 and not by the Central Government - Appellant is a Government Company and neither government nor government department - Nor can it claim the status of an 'agent' of the Central Government for the simple reason that rights vested in the appellant stood crystallised after being transferred by the Central Government - Appellant cannot be permitted to say that though all the rights vested in it but it merely remained the agent of the Central Government - Acceptance of such a submission would require interpreting the expression 'vesting' as holding on behalf of some other person - Such a meaning cannot be given to the expression 'vesting' - Appellant not entitled for exemption under s.3(1 )(a) or 3(1}(b) of the Act 1999 - Appellant directed to file usual undertaking to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of A the premises to respondent No. 1 - Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - Contract Act, 1872- ss.182 and 230.

Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - s.3(1) 8 and (2) - Right, title and interest of textile undertaking vested in Central Government and thereafter in appellant-National Textile Corporation by statutory transfer - Meaning of the expression 'vesting' - Held: 'Vesting' means having obtained an absolute and indefeasible right - It refers to and is used for transfer or conveyance - 'Vesting' in the general sense, means vesting in possession - However, 'vesting' does not necessarily and always means possession but includes vesting of interest as well - 'Vesting' may mean vesting in title, vesting in possession or vesting in a limited sense, as indicated in the context in which it is used in a particular provision of the Act- Word 'Vest' has different shades, taking colour from the context in which it is used - It does not necessarily mean absolute vesting in every situation and is capable of bearing the meaning of a limited vesting, being limited, in title as well as duration.

Pleadings - Purpose and necessity of - Held: Pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the· court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial -- A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties - A party has to take proper pleadings and prove the same by adducing sufficient evidence - In view of the provisions of Order-VIII Rule 2 CPC, the appellant was under an obligation to take a specific plea to show that the eviction suit filed against it was not maintainable which it failed to do so - The appellant ought to have taken a plea in the written statement that it was merely an 'agent' of the Central Government, thus.the suit against it was not maintainable - The appellant did not take such plea before either of the courts below -'More so, whether A is an agent of B is a question of fact and has to be properly pleaded and proved by adducing evidence - The appellant miserably failed to take the required pleadings for the purpose - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - · Order VIII, Rule 2. 

Pleadings - New plea - Held: A new plea cannot be taken in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which no inquiry/proof is required can be permitted to be raised by the court at any stage of the proceedings.

Words and Phrases - vesting - Meaning of. 

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Maharashtra Rent Control Act
  • 1999 - s.3(1J(a) & (b) - Exemption from application of the Act 1999
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2012 AIR 264 = 2011 (12) SCC 695 = 2011 (12) Suppl. SCC 695 = 2011 (10) JT 414 = 2011 (10) Suppl. JT 414 =