NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC. versus ASSTI. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE TEXTILES COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES ETC.
The Supreme Court held that the principle applied in SLP (C) No. 6611/95, which exonerated liability for past periods upon compliance with current obligations under Notification dated March 20, 1995, is equally applicable to earlier periods. Thus, appellants are not liable for past obligations from April 1, 1990 to...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Nagammai Cotton Mills etc.; Respondent: Asst. Director, Regional Office of the Textiles Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles etc.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Madras High Court W.p. No. 17988 of 1994
- Outcome
- Appeals allowed; orders quashed
- Legal Topics
- Obligation of Manufacturers Under Textile (control) Order and Textile (development and Regulation) Order, Past Liability for Production of Hank Yarn, Effect of Government Notification on Manufacturer Obligations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nagammai Cotton Mills etc.
Appellant
Asst. Director, Regional Office of the Textiles Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles etc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Madras High Court W.p. No. 17988 of 1994
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether manufacturers are liable for past obligations to produce hank yarn under the Textile (Control) Order, 1986 and the Textile (Development and Regulation) Order, 1993, in light of Notification dated 29.5.1993 and the concession made by the Additional Solicitor General
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the principle applied in SLP (C) No. 6611/95, which exonerated liability for past periods upon compliance with current obligations under Notification dated March 20, 1995, is equally applicable to earlier periods. Thus, appellants are not liable for past obligations from April 1, 1990 to September 30, 1992.
Court Disposition
Appeals allowed; orders quashed
Orders
- All appeals are allowed; challenged orders are quashed as prayed.
- Government may pursue appropriate action for any future liability under law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
/ •
A
B
C
NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC. v. ASSTI. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE TEXTILES COMMISSIONER, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES ETC.
MARCH 25, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 :
Textile (Control) Order, 1986/Textile (Developmeni and Regulation) Order 1993-Notification dated 29.5.1993---Manufacturers of hank yanr-Obligation 011 to produce the yam-Held, when the past liability was sought to be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995, the same pri11ciple per force would apply to the previous period from April 1,
D 1990 to Sept~mber 30, 1992.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6774 of
1996.
From the Judgment and order date_d 23.12.94 of the Madras High
E Court in W.P. No. 17988 of 1994.
·
C.S. Vaidyanathan, K.V. Viswanathan, K. V. Venkataraman, Sri
Vijayanarayan for thii Appellants.
F
. G
AK. Srivastava· and B.K. Prasad for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted .
We have heard learned counsel on both. sides.
When the matter had come up in the first instance before. another Bench·in S.L.P. (C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to the concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, by order dated September 25, 1995
H this Court passed the order as under : 882
'
NAGAMMAI COITON MILLS"· ASST. DIRECTOR, REG. OFFICE OF THE 1EXTILES COMMR 883
In view of the statemenf made by learned '.Additional Solicitor 'A General that if the current obligation pursuant to the Notification dated March 20, 1995.is carried ·out by the petitioner, the respon dents will not hold them liable for any past liability, the petitioner does not intend to press the SLP which is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not raised any obje~ti~n t~ it; prospective liability under the said Notification dated March 20, 1995".
· , 'B
'•
Subsequently, the appellants claimed the same relief. In view of the liability which sought to be avoided by the appellants, the Union of India had filed a Review Petition before the Bench which came to be dismissed C by order dated March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in.these cases, the same order should equally follow. The learned counsel for the • Union of lridia seeks to contend that the 'concession relates to the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995. The liability ~ow sought to be wiped out .relates in addition to the above it .·also relates to th_e period from April 1, 1990 to September ·30, 1992. He sought to make that distinction and D contends that the matter involves f~rther inve~tigation.We do not fi'nd any ·force in the submission made _by .the 'le.arned counsel.. When the past liability was sought t<i be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to :March 31, 1995, the same principle per force would apply to the previous period fro~ April 1, 1990 to September 30, .1992:- ·
,,
E
Under. those circmµstances, all the appeals are allowed and the orders are quashed as prayed:for. However, the oroer of.this Court does not preclude the Government to take such appropriate steps as are open any future liability. No costs. to them. under. law for
0
c+
RP:
·Appeals are allowed.
F
o·
:,·.
·., ___ ., ~
"''.