MAHESH KUMAR SAHARIA versus STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.

MAHESH KUMAR SAHARIA versus STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.

The acquisition of shares by the State Government amounted to acquisition of ownership of the company and, consequently, management and control was vested incidentally. This does not fall within the prohibition of Section 20 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which concerns only take-over of management/control and not ownership. The impugned State Act is in pith and substance an acquisition of property under Entry 42 of List III and is not repugnant to Parliamentary legislation under Entry 52 List I.

Parties
Appellant: Mahesh Kumar Saharia; Respondents: State of Nagaland and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Acquisition of Shares, Legislative Competence, Entry 42 List III, Entry 52 List I, Industries (development and Regulation) Act, Control Versus Ownership of Undertakings
Constitutional Law Industrial Law Legislative Competence Acquisition of Shares Entry 42 List III Entry 52 List I Industries (development and Regulation) Act Control Versus Ownership of Undertakings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahesh Kumar Saharia

Appellant

State of Nagaland and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition of shares by the State amounts to taking over management or control of a 'declared industry' contrary to Section 20 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
  2. 2 Legislative competence of State Legislature to enact Nagaland Forest Products Ltd. (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1982

Ratio Decidendi

The acquisition of shares by the State Government amounted to acquisition of ownership of the company and, consequently, management and control was vested incidentally. This does not fall within the prohibition of Section 20 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, which concerns only take-over of management/control and not ownership. The impugned State Act is in pith and substance an acquisition of property under Entry 42 of List III and is not repugnant to Parliamentary legislation under Entry 52 List I.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs