Holding

The Supreme Court held that the issue of vesting of Bungalow No.2 was not decided in Doypack and, therefore, the appellant's claim fails, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

Summary

The National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd. (NTC) sought possession of Bungalow No.2 of the Swadeshi House, claiming it vested in it under the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986. The respondents, led by Dr. Raja Ram Jaipuria, contended that the bungalow was never part of the assets transferred to the Central Government and therefore not subject to Section 27 of the Act. The Court examined the earlier judgment in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, noting that the Supreme Court had only ruled on the vesting of Bungalow No.1 and the Administrative Block, leaving the status of Bungalow No.2 untouched. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant could not rely on Doypack to claim ownership of Bungalow No.2 and that the various proceedings filed by NTC, including the complaint under Section 27 and eviction actions under the Public Premises Act, were rightly dismissed. The appeals were therefore dismissed, affirming the trial and High Court orders.

Issues considered

Whether Bungalow No.2 of Swadeshi House vested in the Central Government/NTC under the Swadeshi Act.
Whether a complaint under Section 27 of the Swadeshi Act can be filed by NTC without clear title to the property.
Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. covered the vesting of Bungalow No.2.
Whether eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 are applicable to the appellant.

Legislation cited

Industrial Development Regulation Act, 1951s. 18AA, s. 18M
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971s. 5, s. 7
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986s. 27, s. 2(c), s. 2(k), s. 3, s. 4, s. 8

Subjects

Acquisition and Transfer of UndertakingsVesting of propertySection 27 complaintPublic Premises ActSupreme Court precedentNational Textile Corporation

Judgment

(2013] 7 S.C.R. 2S
I

A ,, NATIONAL TE,XTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD.
v.
DR. RAJA RAM JAIPURIA & 'ORS.
,.._ ---._.
(Civil Appeal .No. 4818 of 2013.. etc.)
•''

JULY 01, 2013 '" .
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

SWADESHI COTTON MILLS COMPANY LIMITED
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS)
C ACT, 1986: . . . . .

s.27 - Complaint for
wrongfully withholding the property
forming part of textile undertaking - Held: In Doypack's case,
the issue of vesting Bung/ow No. 2 of Swadeshi House was
0 neither considered nor was decided by Supreme Court --
Categorical decision in Doypack, rejection of subsequent
application, filed by· appellant for clarification/modification,
direction to approach the civil court, dismissal of complaint
uls 27 of the Act and proceedings under PP Act, go against
E the claim and stand of appellant - Orders of trial court and
High Court upheld - Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 ss. 5 and 7. . · •·
The Central Government by notification dated
13.04.1978, u/s 18AA of the Industrial Development
F Regulation Act, 1951, took over the management of six
textile undertakings of the Swadeshl Cotton Mills
Company Limited (SCMCL) including the Swadeshl
Cotton Mills, Kanpur. As a result of the takeover, the NTC
took possession arid custody of various properties
G · belonging to the SCMCL Including a Guest House
(Bunglow No. 1) and the Administrative Block (Bungalow
, No. 3) of the premises known as 'Swadeshl House' .
.However, Bungalow No. 2 of 'Swadeshi House'. continued
to be in physical possession of the then Director of the
H 28
... '.
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 28
... '

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 29
I' *
'

·1 I'
I

~;,;1:
'
ii !I:
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. I• ''I

A, NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD.
·, ~
·~
. '
scMCL (respondent No. 1). After this Court in Swadeshi A
~>. DR. RAJA RAM JAIPURIA &'ORS.
'. .__ --._.
(Civil Appeal .No. 4818 of 2013.etc.)
. ..,
cotton Mills held the said takeover invalid, the Swadeshi
cotton Mills Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer
I1
of Undertakings) Act, 1986 was enacted and as per s.3
B JULY 01, 2013 '" thereof, every textile undertaking and the right, title and i.,!11
I''
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.) Interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood B .
transferred and vested with the Central Government. The . ·1il
If':'
1
transferred undertakings were further fransferred and
SWADESH/ COTTON MILLS COMPANY LIMITED vested in the NTC. In. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. , this 11~
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) 'I
C ACT, 1986: . . . . Court held that the ownership and control of the SCMCL ;,:I

vested with the NTC. It was also held that Bungalow No. c :1:111i\'
s.27 - Complaint for wrongfully withholding the property 1 and the Administrative Block of Swadeshi House ~fu
forming part of textile undertaking - Held: In Doypack's case, premises also vested. in the Central Government. The
l.\1
the issue of vesting Bung/ow No. 2 of Swadeshi House was claim of the appellant as regards Bunglow No. 2 did not I:'
11.:1
D neither considered nor was decided by Supreme Court -- find favour with the courts. In the instant proceedings ,i!li1I

arising out of s.27 of the Swadeshi Act and ss. 5 and .7 D 11,
Categorical decision in Doypack, rejection of subsequent I•

application, filed by· appellant for clarification/modification, of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized '1,1
1
I·
direction to approach the civil court, dismissal of complaint Occupants) Act, 1971, initiated by the appellant claiming !1:

possession of Bunglow no. 2, it did not succeed in its '~!.·
u/s 27 of the Act and proceedings under PP Act, go against :/
case and ultimately, the High Court by the impugned "'
E the claim and stand of appellant - Orders of trial court and iii·
orders dismissed the.. appellant's writ petitions. '''I''
High Court upheld - Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized -' -- . , -- . E 1:1
Occupants) Act, 1971 ss. 5 and 7. · ' '·"I
1·11
· Disn'.iissing the appeals, the Court [I
,'i,1

The Central Government by notification dated HELD: 1.1 A thorough analysis of the judgment in
13.04.1978, u/s 18AA of the Industrial Development
Doypack shows that the issue as to whether Bungalow
F Regulation Act, 1951, took over the management of six
No.2 of the Swadeshi House vested·in appellant or -not F I
textile undertakings of. the Swadeshi Cotton Mills
was neither considered nor decided by this Court in the
Company Limited (SCMCL) .including. the Swadeshi ·,
said case. The appellant has time and again filed various ''
Cotton Mills, Kanpur. As a result of the takeover, the NTC proceedings on the premise that Bungalow No.2 formed
took possession and custody of various properties
G · belonging to the SCMCL including a Guest House
'- part of the Swadeshi House but failed in all the attempts. .I·
•

'
I :11
'
I

It is not in dispute that all the proceed!ngs went against G
(Bunglow No. 1) and. the Administrative Block (Bungalow
the ~ppellanl [para 9 and, 15) [40-B-C; 43-F-G] 11:..
No. 3) of the premises known as 'Swadeshi House'. , .I
However, Bungalow No. 2 of 'Swadeshi House'. continued ';'.b'oypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
l
to be in physical possession of the then Director of the
·r
=
1988 (2) SCR 962 (1988) 2. SCC 299 - referred to.- -"
H 28 'Ii
_1.2 The various orders and decisions by different H

/
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.

A courts negatived the claim of the appellant and the same
issue is again sought to be raised by the appellant in the
instant proceedings. In view of categorical decision of
this Court in Doypack, rejection of subsequent
application filed by the appellant for clarification/
B modification, direction to approach the civil court,
initiation of proceedings under the PP Act which ended
in dismissal, dismissal of complaint u/s 27 of the
Swadeshi Act, by various courts, undoubtedly go against
the claim and stand of the appellant [para 16) [43-H; 44-
C A-BJ
1.4 The orders passed by the trial court as well as the
High Court are upheld. [para 17] [44-D]
Case Law Reference:
D
1988 (2) SCR 962 referred to para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4818 ·or 2013.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Misc. Writ Petition No.
25090 of 1994.
WITH
F C.A. No. ~819 of 2013.

Indira Jaising, ASG, Dushyant Dave, K.V. Vishwanathan,
Sanjoy Ghose, Kaustubh Anshuraj, Anitha Shenoy,
Shabyashachi Patra, Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Khaitan & Co., Rohit
Kumar Singh, Mehul M. Gupta, Gautam Narayan for the
G appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
H 2. These appeals are directed against tlie final judgment
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 31
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
and order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the High Court of A
Judicature at Allahabad in Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 25090 of
1994 and 30122 of 1996 whereby the High Court dismissed
the petitions filed by the National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd.-
the appellant herein.
B
SLP (Civil) No. 4706 of 2006

3. Brief facts:

(a) In the year 1921, the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company
Limited (SCMCL) was incorporated as a private company and c
converted into a public company in 1923 which was engaged
in the business of activity of operating and managing textile
mills. The SCMCL acquired property at Civil Lines, Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh on which an integrated complex popularly known
as 'Swadeshi House' was constructed. The said House D
consisted of three buildings, viz., Bungalow No. 1 which was
used prior to 1971 as the Registered Office of the SCMCL and
after 1971 it was used for general meetings of the Board of
Directors and also as a Guest House, Bungalow No. 2 was in
the physical possession of the Managing Director of SCMCL E
and Bungalow No. 3 was the Administrative Block of the
SCMCL.

(b) The Central Government, vide notification dated
13.04.1978, under Section 18M of the Industrial Development
Regulation Act, 1951, took over the management of six textile F
undertakings of the SCMCL including the Swadeshi Cotton
Mills, Kanpur and the National Textile Corporation Limited, New
Delhi (NTC), a Government undertaking, was appointed a~ the
authorized representative under the said takeover. As a result
of the takeover, the NTC took possession and custody of G
various properties belonging to the SCMCL including the Guest
House and the Administrative Block. However, Bungalow No.
2 continued to be in the physical possession of Dr. Raja Ram
Jaipuria, the then Director of the SCMCL (Respondent No. 1
herein). H
32 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 7 S.C.R. -

A (c) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.1978 of take over,
the SCMCL filed Writ Petition No. 408of1978 before the High
Court of Delhi. In the High Court, vide order dated 04.05.1978,
a working arrangement between the parties was made· out
wherein Respondent No. 1-herein was permitted to continue '·
B the physical possession of the residential bungalow on the
condition that the same will not be disposed of or alienated in
any way to any outsider. Ultimately, by order dated 01.05.1979,
the High Court upheld the notification dated 13.04.1978 but
certain assets were excluded from the purview of the. same
c including the 'Swadeshi House' and 'Shrubbery'-the residence .
of the Secretary of the SCMCL. ·

(d) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment with regard
to the validity and legality of the order of takeover, Swadeshi

I
Cotton Mills, National Textile Corporation and Union of India
D preferred Civil Appeal Nos. 1629, 1857 and 2087 of .1979.
respectively before this Court This Court, vide judgment dated
13.01.1981 in Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union oflndia (1981)' I
1 sec 664 held the said takeover invalid on the ground that ..
no opportunity of hearing was given to the SCMCL before the
E · takeover. · · .

(e) On 19.04.1986, the Central Government promulgated
I
the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1986. Thereafter, on 30.05.1986,
F the said ordinance was replaced by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills .
Company Liinited'(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1986 (in short 'the Swadeshi Act'). As per Section 3 of the
Swadeshi Act, every textile undertaking and the right, title and
interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood
G transferred and vested with .the Central Government'.° The
transferred undertakings were further transferred and vested in
the NTC. Several proceedings were. instituted by. the .pa.rties
as a result
· , of the acquisition of the undertakings of the. SCMCL.
.
(f) One Mukesh Bhasin, a minority shareholder of
H Swadeshi Polytex Limited (SPL), filed a Civil Suit being No.

I
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 33
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
506 of 1987 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi A
praying for a declaration and injunction against the SCMCL on
the ground that all the investments and assets vest with the NTC
which is the rightful owner of the property after coming into force
of the Swadeshi Act. In the said suit, he also sought an
injunction against SPL from recognizing SCMCL and Swadeshi B
Mining (subsidiary of SCMCL) as the owners of the Swadeshi
House.

(g) Swadeshi Cotton Mills and SCMCL also preferred a
Writ Petition being No. 2214of1987 before the High Court of C
Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) claiming that equity
shares held by the SCMCL in SPL and Swadeshi Mining and
other "excluded assets" should be declared to be exempted
from the scope and ambit of the Swadeshi Act.

(h) The aforementioned Civil Suit No. 506of1987 and Writ D
Petition No. 2214 of 1987 were transferred to this Court and
numbered as Transfer Case Nos. 14 and 13 of 1987
respectively. This Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.1988, in
Mis Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
(1988) 2 SCC 299, allowed Transfer Case No. 14 of 1987 and E
dismissed Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987 and held that the
ownership and control of the SCMCL vests with the NTC. It was
also held that Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block,
Civil Lines, Kanpur also vested in the Central Government.

(i) As the SCMCL failed to handover the possession of F
Bungalow No. 2 of Swadeshi House, the NTC filed Civil Misc.
Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987
praying for a direction to the SCMCL to hando_ver the vacant
possession of Bungalow No. 2. Vide order dated 03.08.1989,
the petition was dismissed without any order with liberty to G
move the appropriate court. In view of the said order, the
National Textile Corporation (U.P.) Ltd. (the appellant herein),
which was a successor-in-interest to the NTC preferred Criminal
Complaint No. 1661 of 1991 against the respondent herein and
others in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kotwali, Kanpur H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 7 S.C.R.

A under Section 27 of the Swadeshi Act for possession of the
said Bungalow. Vide order dated 18.02.1993, the said
complaint got dismissed in view of the ruling given in Doypack
(supra) that only Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block
vested with the Central Government.
B
0) Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.02.1993, the
NTC filed Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1993 before the Session
Judge, Kanpur which also got dismissed vide order dated
30.10.1993 holding that the NTC failed to prove beyond doubt
C that the said Bungalow vested with Central Government with a
direction to move the appropriate court in terms of the order
dated 03.08.1989.

(k) Aggrieved by the same, the NTC preferred Writ Petition
No. 25090 of 1994 before the High Court of Allahabad. In the
D meantime, the NTC filed Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2005 in
Transfer Case No. 14 of 1987 before this Court alleging
violation of the judgment in Doypack (supra) but the same got
dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2006 on the ground of
omission to disclose about the instant proceedings. Vide order
E dated 25.11.2005, the High Court dismissed the above said
writ petition.

(I) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special
F leave.

SLP (Civil) No. 4773 of 2006

(m) On 26.10.1989, the NTC also moved an application
under Sectiol'!s 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
G Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'the PP Act') for
eviction of the respondent herein from the said Bungalow on
the ground that in Doypack (supra), it has already been held
that the Swadeshi House (which also includes Bungalow No.
2) vested with the NTC and there is no question as to the title
H of the respondent herein. During the pendency of the
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 35
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

proceedings before the Estate Officer, Shri Rajaram Jaipuria A
(Respondent No. 2 herein) removed certain valuables from the
Bungalow No. 2. The NTC moved an application for restraining
the Respondents herein for the same before the Estate Officer
which was allowed vide order dated 02.05.1993.
B
(n) Being aggrieved, M/s Ganesh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd
(Respondent No. 16 herein), a related entity of SCMCL,
preferred a Writ Petition being No. 16091 of 1993 before the
High Court. The High Court, by order dated 11.05.1993,
restrained the respondents from removing any article kept in
Bungalow No. 2. Vide order dated 05.08.1994, the Estate
c
Officer rejected all the preliminary objections filed by the
SCMCL. The respondents herein preferred an Appeal being
No. 228 of 1994 under Section 9 of the PP Act before the
District Court, Kanpur.
D
(o) Vide order dated 01.05.1996, the above said appeal
was allowed holding that Doypack {supra) had not addressed
the issue relating to Bungalow No. 2. Being aggrieved, the NTC
preferred Writ Petition being No. 30122 of 1996 before the
High Court. The High Court, vide order dated 25.11.2005 E
dismissed the said petition. · ·

(p) Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special
leave.
F
4. Heard Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor
General for the appellant, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior
counsel for the contesting respondents and Mr. K. V.
Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gautam
Narayan, learned counsel for the newly impleaded parties - G
Kanpur Builders and Ministry of Textiles respectively.

5. It is the definite case of the appellant-NTC that
Swadeshi House was and has always consisted of an
integrated complex comprising of three buildings, viz.,
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.Ft

A Bungalow No.2 (used as the personal residence of the
Directors), Bungalow No.1 (used as Guest House of the
Company) and an Administrative Block besides Servants'
Quarters and adjacent land and because of Section 3 of the
Swadeshi Act, every textile undertaking and the right, title and
B interest of the SCMCL in the said textile undertaking stood
transferred and vested with the Central Government and further
transferred and vested in the NTC. Among the properties
owned by the SCMCL, now we are concerned only about the
ownership of Bungalow No.2 ..
c 6. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that
the properties of SCMCL, Kanpur, vested with the Central
Government, did not include Bungalow No.2 as the same was
always the property of the SCMCL and not of its Kanpur Mills.
It is their assertion that the land on which the SCMCL. is
D constructed was purchased in the year 1921 and the building
was constructed soon thereafter. The said land and house were
not purchased/constructed from tlie profits generated by the
SCMCL, Kanpur but from the shareholders' fund(s) arranged
otherwise. It is also their assertion that the said land, viz.,
E Bungalow No.2, was never vested in the appellant as decided
by this Court in Doypack (supra). It is also brought to our notice
by the respondents that Bungalow Nos. 1 and 2 have been
recorded by the Kanpur Municipality as separate premises ever
since the said two bungalows were constructed. It is also
F pointed out that at present Bungalow No.1 is numbered as
Premises No. 16/15 and Bungalow No.2 is numbered as
Premises No. 16/14, Civil Lines, Kanpur and both are separate
premises having separate boundaries.

G 7. In view of the above, it is relevant to mention the
following provisions of the Swadeshi Act:

(i) In Section 2(c) of the Swadeshi Act, there is a reference
to a registered office of the SCMCL being at "Swadeshi
House".
H
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 37
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(ii) The expression "textile undertakings" has been defined A
in Section 2(k) to mean the following six textile undertakings of
SCMCL:

(a) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur;

(b) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry; B

(c) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini;

(d) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan;

(e) the Udaipur Cotton Mills, Udaipur; c
(f) the Rae Bareli Textile Mills, Rae Bareli;

(iii) Section 3 of the Swadeshi Act transfers and vests the
right, title and interest of the SCMCL "to every such textile D
undertaking" in the Central Government and thereafter in the
National Textile Corporation (NTC).

(iv) Section 4 of the Swadeshi Act defines the effect of
"vesting" as under:
E
"(1) The textile undertakings referred to in Section 3 shall
be deemed to include all assets, rights, lease-holds,
powers, authorities and privileges and all property,
movable and immovable, including lands, buildings,
workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment, F
cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments
and books debts pertaining to the textile undertakings and
all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such
property as were immediately before the appointed day in
the ownership, possession, power or control of the G
Company in relation to the said undertakings whether
within or outside India, and all books of accounts, registers
and all other documents of whatever nature relating
thereto."

H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 7 S.C.R.

A (v) Section 8 of the Swadeshi Act provides a
compensation of Rs.24,32,00,000/- to be paid to the SCMCL.

(vi) Section 27 deals with Penalties as under:

"27. Penalties
B
Any person who.:-

(a) having in his possession, custody or control any
property forming part of any of the textile undertaking
c wrongfully withholds such property from the National Textile
Corporation; or

(b) wrongfully obtains possession of, or retains any
property forming part of, any of the textile undertaking; or
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
D may extend to two years and with fine which may extend
to ten thousand rupees.

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years and with fine which may extend
E to ten thousand rupees."

8. Learned ASG has brought to our notice that several
proceedings were instituted by the parties as a result of the
acquisition of textile undertakings of the SCMCL. Two
significant proceedings are:
F
(1) "A civil suit instituted by one Mukesh Bhasin on
26.02.1987 before the High Court of Delhi. In
paragraph 3 (xix) of the said suit, the appellant
made the following submissions:
G
(xix) The Swadeshi House in an integral part of the Kanpur
Undertaking and includes substantial area of land and
building. The plaintiff reasonably and bona fide believes
that the said House was built in 1921 as a part of the
textile undertaking of defendant No.3 for the benefit and
H
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 39
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
use of its business, which at that time consisted only of the A
Kanpur Textile Undertaking."

In the said suit, the following prayer was sought:

"(a) that the defendant No; 1 is the rightful owner of 10 lakhs
equity shares of defendant No.2 held by defendant No.3 B
and 17,18,000/- equity shares held by defendant No.4 in
defendant No.2 and Swadeshi House at Kanpur and all the
rights, title and interest attached therewith are assets and
investments pertaining to and relate to the textile
undertaking of defendant No.3 and they vest in defendant C
No.1 w.e.f. 1.4.1985 and defendant Nos. 3 & 4 be
restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from
dealing with them in any manner whatsoever.

(b) Defendant No.2 should also be restrained by permanent D
injunction from recognizing defendant Nos. 3 & 4 as
owners of the aforesaid shares and Swadeshi House."

(2) ''The other was a petition instituted by the SwaC:leshi
Mining and Manufacturing Company Ltd.
("SMMCL"), a subsidiary of SCMCL. In the said E
petition, being the civil W.P. No. 2214 of 1987
instituted on 03.04.1987 in the High Court of
Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), SCMCL was
petitioner No.2".
F
The aforementioned Civil Suit No. 506 of 1987 and Writ Petition
No. 2214 of 1987 were transferred to this Court and numbered
as Transfer Case Nos. 14 and 13 of 1987 respectively. This
Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.1988 in Doypack (supra)
allowed Transfer Case No. 14of1987 and dismissed Transfer G
Case No. 13 of 1987.

9. Both the parties adverted to various paragraphs in
Doypack {supra) in extenso. As a matter of fact, basing
reliance on Doypack (supra), learned ASJ submitted that
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A Bungalow No.2 of Swadeshi House, Kanpur vested with them.
In the light of the assertion and claim of both the sides, we have
gone through the entire judgment in Doypack (supra). It is also
to be noted that the: said judgment was scrutinized by various
courts in earlier legal proceedings initiated by the appellant
. B . herein and all such proceedings were dismissed by the courts
including this Court. A thorough analysis of the judgment in
Doypack (supra) shows that the issue as to whether Bungalow
No.2 of the Swadeshi House vested in appellant or not was
neither considered nor decided by this Court in the said case.
· c This is clear from the plain reading of first paragraph of the
judgment itself ' which reads as under:

"1. What falls for consideration in all these matters is a
common question of law, namely, whether equity shares
in the two companies i.e. 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi
D Polytex Limited and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining
and Manufacturing Company Limited, held by the
Swadeshi Cotton Mills, vest in the Central Government
uoder Section 3 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company
Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
E 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The other
subsidiary question is whether the immovable properties,
namely the bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block,
Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested in the Government.
The question as to one more property known as $hrubbery
F property whether it has been taken over or not is still to
be argued and is not covered by this judgment."

10. From the above, the questions which formed the
subject matter of Doypack (supra) were as under:
G "(a) Whether equity shares in the two companies, i.e.,
10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Limited and
17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing
Co. Ltd. held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, vest in the
Central Government under Section 3 of the Swadeshi
H
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 41
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of A
Under5tandings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act").
(b) Whether the immovable properties, namely, the
Bungalow No.1 and the Administrative Block, Civil Lines, B
Kanpur have also vested in the Government."

The abovementioned questions, after detailed reasonings, were
answered by this Court in paragraph Nos. 69 and 70 as under:

"69. We therefore, reiterate that the shares are vested in C
the Central Government. Accordingly the shares in question
are vested in NTC and it has right over the said 34 per
cent of the shareholdings.

70. In the afores~id view of the matter we hold that the D
10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Limited and
17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing
Company Limited held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills
vested in the Central Government under Sections 3 and 4
of the Act.
E
71. We are further of the opinion that in view of the
amplitude of the language used, the 'immovable
properties, namely, the bungalow No. 1 and the
Administrative Block, Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested
·in NTC." F

11. A bare reading of the judgment in Doypack (supra)
makes it clear that the issue regarding vesting of the Bungalow
No.2 of Swadeshi House, Kanpur was not considered by this
Court in the said judgment. Hence, the very same contention G
of the appellant is liable to be rejected.

12. As the SCMCL failed to handover the possession of
Bungalow No. 2 of Swadeshi House, the NTC filed Civil Misc.
Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987
praying for a direction to the SCMCL to handover the vacant H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A possession of Bungalow No. 2. The said application was
disposed of by this Court on 03.08.1989 which reads as under:

"CMP No. 26004 of 1988 : There will be no order on this
CMP. This will not prejudice the right of parties to move
B the appropriate courts in accordance with law."

From the above order, it is clear that this Court did not decide
the issue relating to Bungalow No.2 of the Swadeshi House and
had left it open to the appellant to agitate the question of title
as regards the said Bungalow by moving before the appropriate
C court in accordance with law. It is brought to our notice that such
proceedings were never initiated by the appellant herein.

13. It is useful to point out that despite the dismissal of Civil
Misc. Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in T.C. No. 13 of 1987, the
o appellant herein again moved before this Court by filing
Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2005 in Transfer Case No. 14 of
1987 alleging violation of the judgment in Doypack (supra). It
was alleged by the appellant in the said contempt petition that
since the contemnors therein have sold Bungalow No. 2 to one
E Kanpur Builders Ltd., they have violated the judgment in
Doypack (supra) and, therefore, they are liable to be punished
for contempt. The Director of the said Kanpur Builders Ltd. was
also impleaded as Contemnor No. 3 in the said contempt
petition. By order dated 03.02.2006, this Court, dismissed the
F said contempt petition. After several rounds of litigation, as
discussed in the paragraphs (supra), the appellant filed Writ
Petition No. 25090 of 1994 before the High Court of Allahabad.
By judgment dated 25.11.2005, learned single Judge of the
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein holding that under Section 27 of Act 30 of 1986 a
G complaint could only have been filed by the appellant if the
property had vested in them. It was further held by the High Court
that,

" ...... that a complaint under Section 27 of Act 30 of
H 1986 could only have been filed by the petitioner if the title
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPN. (UP) LTD. v. DR. RAJA 43
RAM JAIPURIA & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of the property in dispute was clearly in their favour. Both A
the Courts below have correctly assessed the facts and
circumstances of the case and have rightly come to the
conclusion that in the absence of having any clear title in
their favour the complaint under Section 27 was
misconceived and, therefore, rightly dismissed." B

14. In addition to the above said proceedings, the appellant
herein initiated further proceedings for their eviction under
Sections 5 and 7 of the PP Act. Similarly, after rounds of
litigation, the claim of the appellant herein got rejected and C
finally the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 30122 of 1996
before the High Court. The High Court, vide order dated
25.11.2005, also dismissed the same and held as under:

" .. , .. the learned District Judge has also rightly come the
conclusion that Bungalow No.2 has not vested with the D
petitioner. This, the learned Judge has said on the basis
of the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court as referred
in the case of Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 SC
782 wherein the only vesting of Bungalow No.1 and
Administrative Block has been upheld. It had been left E
open to the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration of
his title over Bungalow No.2. No suit was filed by the
petitioner. There is no order giving a declaration of title in
favour of the petitioner."
F
15. Taking note of all the above said applications/petitions,
as mentioned in paragraphs (supra), it is abundantly clear that
the appellant herein have time and again filed various
proceedings on the premise that Bungalow No.2 formed part
of the Swadeshi House but failed in all the attempts. It is not in
dispute that all the proceedings went against the appellant G
herein.

16. All the above details, various orders and decisions by
different courts negatived the claim of the appellant and the
same issue is now again sought to be raised by the appellant H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A in the present proceedings. We are satisfied that in view of
categorical decision of this Court in Doypack (supra), rejection
of subsequent application filed by the appellant for clarification/
modification, direction to approach the Civil Court, initiation of
proceedings under the PP Act which ended in dismissal,
B dismissal of complaint under Section 27 of the Swadeshi Act,
were passed by various courts which undoubtedly go against
the claim and stand of the appellant. It is also brought to our
notice by the newly impleaded parties that they had purchased
the said property in a bona fide manner with clean title of the
c property vested in the SCMCL, therefore, they are entitled for
the same. It is made clear that we have not expressed any thing
about the said issue.

17. In view of the above, we are in entire agreement with
the orders pas$ed by the trial Court as well as the High Gourt,
D consequently, both the appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

R.P. Appeals dismissed.