Amritsar Sugar Mills Co Ltd v. Union of India

order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 25, 2011 VKR

13. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 25th February, 2011 + LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 192/2011 AMRITSAR SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Through Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg & Mr. Fazal Ahmad, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC & Ms. Gayatri Verma, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? YES DIPAK MISRA, CJ Calling in question the legal validity of the order dated 24th January, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3880/2010, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred. 2. The brief resume of facts are that Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1982 (for brevity, "the Act"), was brought into force for acquiring the undertaking of the appellant. By notification dated 6th September, 1984, the Commissioner of Payments was appointed under the Act for disbursing the amount payable. Under Section 7(1) of the Act a sum of Rs. 64,48,944.65 was to be paid by the Central Government to the appellant-company for transfer and vesting of the undertaking in the Central Government. Section 17 enables the person having a claim against the appellant company to file claims before the Commissioner of Payments within thirty days from the specified date. Section 19 of the Act stipulates that after meeting of the claims of the secured and unsecured creditors in terms of the priority set out in Section 16(2) of the Act, the balance amount shall be paid to the company in question. 3. As set forth, the final notice was published on 5th October, 1987 seeking claims from the appellant company under Section 19 of the Act by the Commissioner. No claim was received in pursuance of the said notice and accordingly, the Office of the Commissioner of Payments was wound up on 2nd January, 1989. 4. As manifest, the appellant moved the competent authority of the Central Government under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to know why the amount which was due to it was not paid and to the said query it was replied that as on 1st April, 1994 a sum of Rs.53,40,500/- was available in the Pay and Accounts Office as determined under the Act after settling the claims of the secured creditors. 5. A writ petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court forming the subject matter being W.P. (C) No. 12811/2009, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with more particulars. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and the learned single Judge rejected the contention that the Central Government was under an obligation to tender the amount and held that the writ petition was hit by doctrine of delay and laches. Being of this view, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Assailing the order, it is submitted by Mr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge has fallen into error by applying the principle of delay and laches to a case of this nature inasmuch as the undertaking was taken over in the year 1982 and the notice was published in 1987 and after determination of the amount payable to the creditors and others, the amount was available with the Commissioner which was due to the appellant. It is urged by him that the Central Government could not have kept the appellant"s money in the absence of any statutory prohibition to get back the money solely on the ground that the appellant approached in a belated manner. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no warrant or justification on the part of the respondents to deny the amount which is the amount that is due to him after making good of all claims. It is further contended by him that the said act tantamounts to confiscation of property an