PANIPAT WOOLLEN & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

PANIPAT WOOLLEN & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Where the Legislature specifies sick textile undertakings in the First Schedule and lays down criteria in the Act, there is no requirement to hear the company before such specification or takeover; the determination is not judicial, does not alter the Constitution's basic structure, and compensation fixed in the schedule is not illusory or inadequate under constitutional standards.

Parties
Petitioner: Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Union of India; Petitioner: Dalveer Bhandari; Respondent: Ms. A. Subhashini; Respondent: A.K. Goel; Respondent: T.V.S.N. Chari; Respondent: R.K. Jain; Respondent: Dr. N.M. Ghatate; Respondent: D.N. Mishra; Respondent: H.S. Parihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Original Jurisdiction (article 32)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Natural Justice, Nationalisation, Adequacy of Compensation, Validity of Legislative Action
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Company Law Separation of Powers Natural Justice Nationalisation Adequacy of Compensation Validity of Legislative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd.

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Dalveer Bhandari

Petitioner

Ms. A. Subhashini

Respondent

A.K. Goel

Respondent

T.V.S.N. Chari

Respondent

R.K. Jain

Respondent

Dr. N.M. Ghatate

Respondent

D.N. Mishra

Respondent

H.S. Parihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Original Jurisdiction (article 32)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether opportunity of hearing should be given to the owner before taking over management as sick textile undertaking under the Act
  2. 2 Whether legislative specification of sick textile undertakings violates the basic structure of the Constitution (separation of powers)
  3. 3 Whether the Nationalisation Act, 1974, is constitutionally invalid for inadequacy of compensation

Ratio Decidendi

Where the Legislature specifies sick textile undertakings in the First Schedule and lays down criteria in the Act, there is no requirement to hear the company before such specification or takeover; the determination is not judicial, does not alter the Constitution's basic structure, and compensation fixed in the schedule is not illusory or inadequate under constitutional standards.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Rule nisi discharged
  • No order as to costs