ivil Appeal No 1197 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 511987 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No 382 of 1986
KK Venugopal AK Chitale Deepak K Thakur and SK Gambhir for the Appellant
YS Chitale MS Ganesh and Ravi Wagmare for the Respondent
This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment  Order dated 5 1 1987 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at 251 Indore in Civil Revision No 382 of 1986 by which the High Court affirmed the order dated 28 11 1986 of the District Judge Ujjain in Civil Execution Case No 1249 of 1986 filed by the respondent against the appellant
The appellant is a textile undertaking at Agra Road Ujjain
The Madhya Pradesh Government enacted the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram Vishesh Upbandh Adhiniyam 1978 No 32 of 1978 for short the Act with the object of giving relief to sick undertakings
Relief was given to the appellant company first by notification No F 17 87 79 XI B 1 dated 15 11 1980 extended from time to time by subsequent orders the relief so given to continue till 15 11 1987
The respondent filed a summary suit against the appel lant in the Bombay High Court on its original side as summary suit No 124 of 1986 claiming a decree for Rs 121232750 with interest and costs
The appellant did not contest the suit
The suit was accordingly decreed
The respondent got the decree transferred for execution to the District Judge Ujjain on 26 9 1986 and then applied for execution of the decree
The appellant resisted execution by filing objection pleading that it was a relief undertaking under the Act the benefits under which Act were available till 15 11 1986 at the time the objection was filed now upto 15 11 1987 and that the decree could not therefore be executed against it in view of the bar contained in Section 5 of the Act
The respondent admitted the appellant to be a relief undertaking
However it was contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain any objec tion to the execution of the decree validly passed by the Bombay High Court The Execution Court it was contended could not go behind the decree and the decree mandated execution on its terms
The learned District Judge upheld the contentions of the respondent and held that the appellant could not take advan tage of the notifications under the Act because the rights and liabilities of the parties had to be determined by the transferee court in accordance with the substantive law beating on the question in the court that passed the decree
He further held that the execution of the decree could not be challenged before the transferee court unless it was shown that the transferor Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree
The objection of the appellant was thus reject ed
The appellant thereupon filed a revision in the High Court
The High Court rejected the revision and affirmed the order of the District Judge
Hence this appeal
252 The questions of law raised before us are as follows a Whether on a true construction of Section 5 of the Act execution of the ex parte decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner at Bombay can be insti tuted commenced or proceeded with by the respondent against the petitioner even though the petitioner s textile undertaking is admit tedly a State Relief Undertaking under the Act b Whether Section 5 of the aforesaid Act is substantive law or procedural law The High Court considered this question and held that there was no bar against execution of the decree after considering the effect of Section 5 quoted above on the general law governing decrees and their execution as provid ed in the Civil Procedure Code
The High Court relied upon the settled position that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree even if it is erroneous on law or on facts
We extract below the finding by the High Court against the appellant in paragraph 20 It may be stated that it was perhaps due to the position of the law as propounded in the Delhi decision that the suit in the Bombay High Court was not contested by the petition er
With the determination of the rights of the parties by the Bombay High Court according to the substantive law applicable to the State of Maharashtra the nonapplicant was manifest ly clothed with the absolute right to execute the decree unless some express provisions of law in Maharashtra empowered the Court to restrain him from executing the same
Such fight cannot again be subjected to andor regulated by any law of the State of MP to which the decree is sent only for execution
Any provision to suspend such right of execu tion of a valid decree does partake of the character of substantive law and cannot be interpreted as merely a rule of procedure within the meaning of Sec 40 of the CPC prescribing the manner of execution
It has therefore to be held on the authority of Ramavtar s case supra that the provision in Section 5 of the Adhiniyam pertains to the domain of substantive law and cannot be said to relate to the realm of adjective or proce dural law
The petitioner therefore
has no locus standi to seek shelter under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam against 253 the execution of the decree passed by the Bombay High Court it being a substantive law of the State of MP and not merely a proce dural law within the meaning of Section 40 of the CPC or procedural power under Section 42 ibid governing the mode of execution
The suit in the Bombay High Court was not liable to be stayed and so is the decree therein passed
 It is evident from the above discussion that the High Court completely overlooked the purpose of the Act and the limited period of operation of Section 5
It has to be borne in mind that the Act in question was enacted with a specific purpose
The preamble to the Act states that the Act has been enacted to enable the State Government to make special provisions for a limited period in respect of industrial relations financial obligations and other like matters in relation to industrial undertakings the running of which is considered essential as a measure of preventing or of providing relief against unemployment
 It is necessary to note that the State Government and other financial institu tions invest large sums of money to revive sick units or relief undertakings
The Government and such institutions are interested in seeing that the amount so invested are utilised for the purpose of running the relief undertaking so that it can be gradually revived and what is more impor tant to provide continuous employment to a large number of workers
The Government is interested in making sure that the relief undertakings do not incur burdensome debts engage in costly litigations and consequent attachment of their machineries and moveables thus gradually destroying the units completely
The Act has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the general public the workers and the amounts invested
It is for this purpose that relief was given to the unit against execution of decrees for a maximum period of seven years
If creditors of the relief undertak ings ingeniously manage to obtain decrees against them from Courts situated in areas where the Act is not in operation and thus try to circumvent the operation of the Act by getting such decrees transferred to the area where the Act is in operation and plead that their decrees are saved from the mischief of the Act such actions would be to defeat the very purpose of the Act
When we say this we do not want to encourage such relief undertakings not to pay current li abilities
We are only concerned here with the interpreta tion of the sections of the Act
We will presently refer to some of the relevant sections and consider their operation both for pre notification and post notification debts
Section 23 defines relief undertaking and section 24 a state industrial undertaking as follows 254 23 relief undertaking means a State industrial undertaking in respect of which a declaration under Section 3 is in force 24 State industrial undertaking means an industrial undertaking
a which is started or which or the management of which is under any law or agree ment acquired or otherwise taken over by the State Government or by a Government company and is run or proposed to be run by or under the authority of the State Government or a Government company or b to which any loan advance or grant has been given or in respect of any loan whereof a guarantee has been given by the State Government or Government company or c in respect of which a notified order under the Industries Development and Regula tion Act 1951 No 65 of 195 1 is in opera tion
 Declaration of a relief undertaking is provid ed for in Section 3 which reads as follows The State Government may if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest with a view to enabling the continued running or re starting of a State industrial undertaking as a measure of preventing or of providing relief against unemployment declare by notification  that the State industrial undertaking shall on and from such date and for such period as may be specified in the notification be a relief undertaking
Provided that the period so specified shall not in the first instance exceed one year but may by a like notification be extended from time to time by any period not exceeding one year at any one time so however that such periods in the aggregate shall not exceed seven years
 Section 4 provides for suspension of certain enactments contracts agreements etc appel icable to relief undertaking
The Section reads as follows 255 4
Application of certain enactments and contracts agreements etc
to relief undertaking That State Government may if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the purposes specified in section 3 direct by notification  a that in relation to any relief undertaking all or any of the enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act shall not apply or shall apply with such adaptations whether by way of modification addition or commission which does not however affect the policy of the said enactments as may be specified in such notification or b that the operation of all or any of the contracts assurances of property agree ments settlements awards standing orders or other instruments in force to which any relief undertaking is a party or which may be applicable to any relief undertaking immedi ately before the date on which the State industrial undertaking is declared to be a relief undertaking shall remain suspended or that all or any of the rights privileges obligations and liabilities accruing or aris ing thereunder before the said date shall remain suspended or shall be enforceable with such modifications and in such manner as may be specified in such notification
 The Schedule to the Act mentions the following six Acts 1 The Industrial Employment Standing Or ders Act 1946 No 20 of 1946
2 The No 14 of 1947
3 The No 11 of 1948
4 The Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establish ments Act 1958 No 25 of 1958
5 The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960 No 27 of 1960
256 6 The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employ ment Standing Orders 1961 No 26 of 1961
Now we come to the important Section with which we are vitally concerned in this appeal and that is Section 5 which reads as follows 5
Suspension of suits or other legal pro ceedings against relief undertakings As from the date specified in the notification under sub section 1 of section 3 no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted or commenced or if pending shall be proceeded with against the industrial undertaking during the period in which it remains a relief under taking any law usage custom contract instrument decree order award settlement of other provisions whatsoever notwithstand ing
 What we are called upon to decide in this case is wheth er proceedings taken in the Madhya Pradesh Court for execu tion of a decree validly obtained in the Bombay High Court has to be or can be stayed under this Section
We have already seen that the maximum period of the stay is seven years and this period will expire on 15 11 1987
Section 7 deals with suspension or modification of certain remedies rights etc
and reads as follows 7
Suspension or modification of certain remedies rights etc
 stay of proceedings their revival and continuance
Any remedy for the enforcement of any right privilege obligation or liability referred to in clause b of Section 4 and suspended or modified by a notification under that section shall in accordance with the terms of the notification be suspended modified and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court tribunal officer or other authority shall accordingly be stayed or be continued subject to such modification so however that on the notification ceasing to have effect a any right privilege obligation or liability so suspended or modified shall revive and be enforceable as if the notifica tion had never been issued and 257 b any proceeding so stayed shall be proceeded with subject to the provisions of any law which may then be in force from the stage which had been reached when the proceed ing was stayed
 A close scrutiny of the above section reveals that Section 5 has a free field of operation unfettered by any limitation
The section is not happily worded
What the section intends to convey according to us if the words are re arranged would be as follows Notwithstanding any lawusage custom con tract instrument decree order award settlement or other provisions no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted or commenced or if pending shall be proceeded against the industrial undertaking as from the date specified in the notification under sub section 1 of Section 3 during the period in which it remains a relief undertaking
 So read the object of the section becomes clear
The section seeks to confer benefit to the relief undertakings from the ravages of litigation during the period it remains a relief undertaking
The expression decree  is very mate rial for our purpose
Inclusion of decrees  in the section shows that the fact that decrees were validly obtained against a relief undertaking will not pose any danger to it during the period the declaration is in force
In other words the section prevents execution of a decree validly obtained against the undertaking during the period mentioned above
That takes us to the question as to whether the words other legal proceedings in the section would take in execution proceedings
It is not disputed that the Section bars institution of suits and starting of other proceedings
What is disputed is that expression other legal proceed ings will not take in execution proceedings
The contention is grounded on the general principle that the execution court cannot go behind a valid decree and that the execution court cannot therefore refuse to execute it
It is admit ted that the decree obtained from the Bombay High Court is a valid decree
That being so law should take its course and execution should proceed
It is by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in Sections 40  42 of the Civil Proce dure Code that this validly obtained decree got transferred to the Court in Madhya Pradesh
It is contended that by the mere transfer of this decree in accordance with the proce dural law its validity does not disappear nor its binding force cease to exist
We find difficulty in accepting this contention
If we are to accept this submission it would be rendering section 5 of the Act nugatory and to 258 destroy the benefits sought to be conferred by that section
Nobody questions the validity of the decree
All that is sought to be done is to suspend its animation for the period mentioned in the notification
No Court in Madhya Pradesh can question its validity nor can refuse to execute it after the period is over
To direct execution of the decree in the teeth of Section 5 would be to encourage filing of suits in Courts outside Madhya Pradesh secure decrees and defeat the purpose of the Act
We do not think that such an abuse is permissible in the face of Section 5 of the Act
We have therefore to answer this question in favour of the appellant
For the disposal of this case we do not think it neces sary to refer to the lengthy discussion made by the High Court on substantive and procedural law
We have to construe and interpret the section as it stands
The section is unambiguous and full import has to be given to its words and its intent
The non obstante clause in this section takes within its ambit all the decrees passed against the relief undertakings
The bar of institution or commencement  takes within its ambit suits or other legal proceedings  which include execution petitions also
An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that the expression other legal proceedings cannot take in proceedings to execute validly obtained decrees
It was further contended that if we give such a wide construction to the expression other legal proceedings institution of even claims of workers under the and other similar beneficial legis lations arising after the issue of notification will be barred
On the wording of the section we feel such a conclu sion is inescapable
Reliance was placed by the counsel for the respondent on the decision in the case of State Bank of India vs Jaipur Udyog  Ors AIR 1986 Delhi 357 to contend that no objec tion can be raised to the execution of the decree validly obtained from the Bombay High Court
We find that the above decision has no application to our case
In that case an attempt was made to block a suit filed in the Delhi Court against a relief undertaking under the Rajasthan Relief Undertakings Special Provisions Act 9 of 1961 based on Section 3  4
That contention was repelled and according to us rightly
There the State Bank of India brought a suit for the recovery of certain amounts against Jaipur Udyog Limit ed the principal debtor a company based in Rajasthan and the guarantors
This company had been declared by the State of Rajasthan as a relief undertaking under Section 3 of the Act
Section 2 of the Act barred institution or commencement of suit 259 or other legal proceedings against a relief undertaking
This section contains an explanation as to what legal proceedings are
Relying upon this section the company and the guarantors pleaded that the suit was liable to be stayed
The question before the High Court was whether the Act had extra territorial operation
The case was heard by a Single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench in view of the conflict between the Allahabad High Court and the Punjab  Haryana High Court
The High Court referred to Section 12 of the Act which stated that the Act extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan which was an explicit declaration of the legislature about the territorial appli cation of the Act and held that the contention of the debt ors that the suit in Delhi Court ought to be stayed was unsustainable
We are here confronted with a different situation
If what is contended before us had been contended before the Bombay High Court same result would have fol lowed
We have here a situation entirely different and that is steps to execute a decree in a territory over which the Madhya Pradesh Act has application
If the decree obtained from the Delhi High Court had been transferred to a Rajas than Court and a decision was rendered on an objection to its execution in favour of the decree holder that would have helped the respondent
No support can be taken by the respondent from this case
We may seek support for our construction of the words legal proceedings  to include execution proceeding from a judgment of the Federal Court in the case The Governor General in Council vs Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd The factual details in brief are as follows The respondent company was assessed to income tax for the year 1941 42 by an assessment order dated 25th February 1943
In the meantime however a petition to wind up the company had been presented on the 26th November 1941 a provisional liquidator had been appointed on the 7th Decem ber 1941 and finally on the 17th April 1942 a winding up order had been made by the High Court at Allahabad
On 10th March 1943 a notice of demand was served on the official liquidator of the respondent company under Section 29 of the Income tax Act 1922
The official liquidator pointed out to the Income tax department that the proper procedure to be followed was to lodge a claim in the winding up in respect of the tax alleged to be due from the Company
Instead of adopting this procedure the Income tax department adopted its statutory procedure under Section 46 and accordingly sent an arrear demand informing the latter that the demand was recoverable as arrears of land revenue
The official 260 liquidator thereupon made an application to the High Court under Sections 171 228 and 233 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 against the department asking for an order that the respondent be directed to put in a formal claim to the official liquidator in respect of the sum due
The Allahabad High Court restrained the department from proceeding accept ing the plea of the company as the leave of the Court was not obtained under Section 171
We are only concerned with the manner in which the Federal Court understood the expres sion other legal proceeding occurring in Section 171 of the Indian Companies Act
That Section reads as follows When a winding up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed no suit or other legal proceeding shall be pro ceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose
 The Federal Court discussed this question at page 56 as follows That still leaves open the question whether action under Section 46 of the Indian Income tax Act is covered by the phrase other legal proceeding Clearly it is not a proceeding in an ordinary Court of law
But we see no reason why in British India no legal proceeding can be taken otherwise than in an ordinary Court of law or why a proceeding taken elsewhere than in an ordinary Court of law provided it be taken in a manner prescribed by law and in pursuance of law or legal enactment cannot properly be described as a legal proceeding
 If it be considered that the effect of the Income tax authorities putting the machinery of section 46 of the Income tax Act in motion for the collection of arrears of income tax is to bring into operation all the appropriate legal enactments relating to the collection of land revenue in the Province concerned it is in our judgment very difficult to say that they are not taking a legal proceeding
 In fact in this very case had the company not been in liquidation the appellant would have had the choice at his option of a proceeding by suit in the ordinary Courts in respect of the arrears or b by forwarding under section 462 of the Income tax Act to the Collector the requisite Certificate initiating and putting into force collection of the arrears as arrears of land revenue under and in ac cordance with the appropriate provisions of the 261 UP Land Revenue Act III of 1901
Surely such last mentioned action on the part of the income tax authorities would be the adoption of another legal proceeding for the collection of the arrears as opposed to the institution of a suit
The proviso to section 462 empowers the Collector if he so chooses to exercise all the powers which a civil court may exer cise in respect of the attachment and sale of debts due to a judgment debtor
If the Income tax Officer will be taking a legal proceeding when he moves the Collector as we think he must be held to do to realize the tax by attachment and sale of debts due to the assesee it can make no difference in princi ple that the Collector is asked to exercise his summary powers under the land revenue law
Accordingly we agree with the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in holding that the words other legal proceed ing in section 171 of the Indian Companies Act 19 13 comprise any proceeding by the revenue authorities under section 462 of the Indian Income tax Act and that accordingly before forwarding the requisite certificate under section 462 of the Indian Income tax Act
 There is no reason why the expression other legal proceedings  in section 5 should not include execution petitions also
If we look into the scheme of the Act and the various sections it will be evident that Section 5 is an independ ent section uncontrolled by Sections 4 6  7
Sections 4 6  7 deal with suspension or modification of certain reme dies rights etc
 stay of proceedings their revival and continuance
Section 5 does not make any reference to Sec tion 4
It had been enacted with a definite object and that is to protect the relief undertakings from litigations and consequent actions
The object is clear
The Government wants to relieve such undertakings from litigative pressure for a period of time
It is not a permanent relief
The Government are interested to see that the investments made by it and other financial institutions do not get frittered away by avoidable litigation and other legal proceedings
The bar contained in Section 5 by way of suspension of suits or other legal proceedings is thus an absolute bar but only for the period contemplated by the Act
The limited question that we have to answer is as to whether 262 Section 5 operates even against execution of decrees ob tained against the relief undertaking by its creditors outside the State of Madhya Pradesh
The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice decisions reported in AIR 1948 Patna 245 and AIR and similar other decisions to contend that the execution court cannot while executing decrees adopt a procedure under any special law available in the State in which the execution court is situate in relation to decrees obtained outside the States
For example suppose a decree is obtained in Madras and it is transferred to Madhya Pra desh
Suppose again that in Madhya Pradesh there is an enactment to scale down the decree amount either in instal ments or to wipe out the debt of an agriculturist will it be open to the executing court to take recourse to such enactments and give relief to debtors in the State in rela tion to a decree obtained in a Court outside the State
It is settled law that the transferee Court has to execute the decree in accordance with the law obtaining in the Court that passed the decree and determine the rights and liabili ties of the parties in accordance with the substantive law obtaining in the State where that Court is situate
That being so the judgment debtor cannot move the execution court and get the benefit of the procedure available in the State in which the transferee Court is situated
Here we are not confronted with such a situation
Nobody contends that the executing Court has to change the terms of the decree
All that is stated is that its execution has to be suspended for a specified period
Section 5 therefore does not come into conflict either with Section 40 or sec tion 42 of the Civil Procedure Code
In our view the bar under Section 5 is an absolute one for the duration of the period contemplated in the Act
If the relief undertakings are not protected by a provi sion like Section 5 the position will be distressing
The creditors will proceed against them
Their properties and goods will be attached
The workers will be rendered job less
In this case this unit is said to employ nearly 2000 workers
The creditors will not be in a more advantageous position either
If liquidation proceedings are initiated the creditors will get only pro rata from the sale proceeds of the assets
If creditors are permitted to proceed against the assets and the products of the undertaking that would be detrimental to the heavy investment made by the State and other financial institutions
The concern of the Government in enacting this law is thus in the interest of the large 263 number of workmen employed in these undertakings and in the revival if possible of a sick unit
It is to protect them and not to render them unemployed that such relief undertak ings are financed by the State
A contention was raised that Section 5 cannot apply to post notification liabilities
In other words suits and other proceedings in relation to the debts incurred prior to the notification under Section 3 alone are barred and debts incurred subsequent to the notification under Section 3 are not barred under Section 5
In our view the reading of the Sections does not permit such an interpretation
The object of Section 5 is to protect the relief undertakings from all suits and legal proceedings
This protection is to end on 18 11 1987
We hold that the High Court was in error in allowing execution to proceed
Before parting with this case we wish to observe that the powers that be will have to evolve a more acceptable procedure while dealing with sick units
We share the con cern expressed in high places about the loss that Government incurs in trying to rescue sick units
Invariably the amounts pumped in are ultimately lost
The machineries of the unit in question are as old as 1920
One can easily imagine the nature of the products that come out of a unit like this
What purpose will be served by giving life to such units by providing artificial respiration The concern for workers must be matched with the concern for modernisa tion also
The labour should not be left to the mercy of such sick units
The Government will have to evolve a more acceptable and intelligent policy to help the labour and for modernisation of industry
These units like flaring tapers brightening as they waste with temporary financial blood transfusion must in the interest of all concerned be subjected to euthanasia
The situation created must be met boldly
Such units with decrepit and antiquated machineries must be got rid of and public money must be saved
In their places new units must come into existence
We know that this would involve heavy financial liability
But in the long run it would save public interest more
If Government find it difficult to pump enough money at least a trial must be undertaken to entrust such units to the labour to test how they work with their cooperative efforts
In such a situa tion
there will not be siphoning of the funds of the unit by the entrepreneurs for self aggrandisement for more often than not sickness in such units sets in because the funds of the units are diverted to defeat both the Govern ment and the labour and only to benefit the owners of such units
264 With these observations we set aside the order of the High court and allow this appeal but with no order as to costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram Vishesh Upbandh Adhiniyam 1978 provides for the declaration of a State industrial undertaking as a relief undertaking and section 5 for suspension of suits or other legal proceedings against such relief undertakings and bars institution or commence ment of suits or other legal proceedings against such an industrial undertaking during the period in which it remains a relief undertaking notwithstanding any law usage custom contract instrument decree order award or settlement
The appellant a textile undertaking at Ujjain MP was declared a relief undertaking  by notification dated 15111980 issued by the State Government under section 3 of the Act and the time extended by subsequent orders till 15111987
The respondent filed a summary suit against the appellant in the Bombay High Court for a certain sum with interest and costs which was decreed ex parte
He then got the decree transferred for execution to the Court of Dis trict Judge Ujjain Madhya Pradesh on 2691986
The appel lant resisted execution on the ground of the bar contained in section 5 of the Act
The respondent while admitting that the appellant was a relief undertaking contended that the Dis trict Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain any objection to the execution of the decree validly passed by the High Court as it could not 248 go behind the decree and the decree mandated execution on its terms
The District Judge held that the appellant could not take advantage of the notifications under the Act because the rights and liabilities of the parties had to be deter mined by the transferee court in accordance with the sub stantive law bearing on the question in the court that passed the decree and that the execution of the decree could not be challenged before the transferee court unless it was shown that the transferor court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree
The High Court took the view that the executing court could not go behind the decree even if it was erroneous on law or on facts and after considering the effect of section 5 on the general law governing decrees and their execution as provided in the Civil Procedure Code held that there was no bar against execution of the decree and consequently rejected the revision and affirmed the order of the District Judge
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the respondent that the expression other legal proceedings  would not take in execution proceedings and the execution court could not therefore refuse to execute a valid de cree that if such a wide construction was given to that expression institution of even claims of workers under the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar beneficial legis lation would be barred that the execution court could not while executing decrees adopt a procedure under any special law available in the State in which the execution court was situate in relation to decrees obtained outside the States and finally that section 5 could not apply to post notification liabilities
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD 1
The High Court was in error in allowing execu tion to proceed
It has completely overlooked the purpose of the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram Vishesh Upbandh Adhini yam 1978 and the limited period of operation of section 5
The bar contained in the section by way of suspension of suits or other legal proceedings against relief undertakings is an absolute one for the period contemplated in the Act
263C 253B 262F 2
The section is not happily worded
What it intends to convey if the words are re arranged would be Notwith standing any law usage custom contract instrument decree order award settlement or other provisions no suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted or commenced or if pending shall be proceeded against the industrial undertaking as from the date specified in the notification under sub section
249 1 of section 3 during the period in which it remains a relief undertaking
So read the object of the section becomes clear
257BD 3
The section has to be construed and interpreted as it stands
It iS unambiguous and full import has to be given to its words and its intent
The expression other legal pro ceedings  in the section includes execution proceedings also
The non obstante clause contained therein takes within its ambit all the decrees passed against relief undertak ings
The bar of institution or commencement  takes within its ambit suits or other legal proceedings  which include execution petitions also
The inclusion of the expression decree  in the section further shows that a decree validly obtained against a relief undertaking cannot be executed during the period the declaration is in force
2S8C 261E 257DE The Governor General in Council vs Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd  referred to
State Bank of India vs Jaipur Udyog  Ors AIR 1986 Delhi 357 distinguished
Section 5 has a free field of operation unfettered by any limitation
It is independent and uncontrolled by sections 4 6 and 7 which deal with suspension or modification of cer tain remedies rights etc stay of proceedings their revival and continuance
It does not make any reference to section 4
It had been enacted with a definite object and that is to protect the relief undertakings from litigations and consequent actions during the period the declaration is in force
257B 261F 5
Section 5 operates even against execution of decrees obtained against the relief undertaking by its creditors outside the State of Madhya Pradesh
To direct execution of such decrees would be to encourage filing of suits in courts situated in areas where the Act is not in operation secure decrees and then try to circumvent the operation of the Act by getting those decrees transferred under sections 40 and 42 of the Civil Procedure Code and defeat the purpose of the Act
Such an abuse is not permissible in the face ors
5 of the Act
262A 258B 253F 257G 6
The transferee court has to execute the decree in accordance with the law obtaining in the court that passed the decree and determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in accordance with the substantive law obtaining in the State where that court is situate
That being so the judgment debtor cannot move the execution court and get the benefit of the procedure available in the State in which the transferee court is situated
262D 250 In the instant case the decree obtained from the Bombay High Court was a valid decree
No court in Madhya Pradesh could question its validity nor could refuse to execute it
All that is sought to be done by section 5 of the Act is to suspend its animation for the period mentioned in the noti fication
It is not a permanent relief
Section 5 there fore does not come into conflict either with section 40 or 42 of the Civil Procedure Code
257FG 258AB 261FG 262EF 7
It cannot be said that the debts incurred prior to the notification under section 3 alone are barred and debts incurred subsequent to the notification under section 3 are not barred
Section 5 does not permit such an interpretation
263BC 8
There is need to evolve a more acceptable procedure while dealing with sick units
Invariably the amounts pumped in in trying to rescue sick units are ultimately lost
No purpose will be served by giving life to such units
The concern for workers must be matched with concern for modernisation also
The labour should not be left to the mercy of such sick units
The Government will have to evolve a more acceptable and intelligent policy
Units with decrep it and antiquated machineries must be got rid of and public money must be saved
In their places new units must come into existence
If Government finds it difficult a trial must be undertaken to entrust such units to the labour to test how they work with their cooperative effort
263DH