- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench dismissing this Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The Sick Textile Undertaking Nationalisation Act, 1974 (in short the "Act") became operative with effect from 1.4.1974. One Textile Undertaking i.e. Mahalaxmi Mills Ltd. Bewar vested in the Central Government under the Act. The same was transferred to the National Textile Corporation (in short the "Corporation") and thereafter to the present appellant which is a Subsidiary of the Corporation i.e. National Textile Corporation (Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan) Ltd. Appellant"s stand was that in terms of Section 3 of the Act, with effect from the appointed date i.e. 1.4.1974, every sick textile undertaking and the right title and interest of the owner in relation to such textile undertaking stood vested absolutely in the Central Government and in turn to the Corporation. Section 4 of the Act sets out the general effects of vesting. Under Section 5 of the Act, deals with the liability of the owner of the sick textile undertaking and clearly provides that every liability other than the liability specified in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the owner of a sick textile undertaking in respect of any period prior to the appointed date was a liability of the owner and shall be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the Corporation. On 25.5.1978, respondent- Bank filed claim before the Commissioner for Payment (in short the "Commissioner") raising demand of about Rs.34.72 lakhs. After examining the claim the Commissioner allowed the claim to the extent of about Rs.21.22 lakhs i.e. the amount outstanding against the owner on 31.3.1974 i.e. a day prior to the appointed date. The claim towards interest was rejected by the Commissioner. An appeal was also preferred by the respondent-bank before the District Judge under Section 23 of the Act. By order dated 20.8.1987 the District Judge held that for a period subsequent to the appointed date liability would be of the owner and held that respondent was entitled to interest at the contractual rate for a period subsequent to 31.3.1974. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner to work out the details.;