Civil Appeal No 2891 of 1984
From the Judgment and Order dated 28284 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Order No 11884 D AK Ganguli P Parmeswaran and K Swamy for the Appellant
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJIJ
This is a statutory appeal under Section 35 Lb of the Central Excise  Salt Act 1944 hereinafter called the Act  against the Order dated February 22 1944 passed by the Customs Excise  Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the CEGAT  In this appeal we are concerned with the question whether there was exigibility to taxation on the item concerned under the Act
It appears that during the course of investigations made against Swastik Investment Company Bombay the Central Excise Officers found that some of the consignments of the material described in the documents as crimpled uncut waste  were cleared from Ms Swadeshi Polytex Ltd Ghaziabad during the period from Jan 74 to Dec 77 and were purchased by the respondents herein and utilised in the manufacture of polyester staple fibre
The Collector held that the so called crimpled uncut waste  purchased by the respondents was in fact polyester fibre tow and the staple fibre which were commercially two distinct products and the respondents had carried on manufacture of polyester staple fibre from tow and as such exigible to duty
The respondents filed an appeal before the Central Board of Excise  Customs against the Collector s Order
The appeal was thereafter transferred to CEGAT in pursuance of Section 35 P of the Act
It appears that there is distinction between a tow and staple fibre
The Ministry of Finance Deptt of Revenue s circular indicates as follows Tow is a collection of many parallel continuous filaments without twist which are grouped together in rope like form Tow is used for the same purpose for which staple fibre is 1009 used
Tow is mainly converted into staple fibre and only a negligible quantity is converted directly into yarn
It has been therefore decided that duty should be levied on Tow at the rate applicable to staple fibre MF DR  I F No 50771 CX 2 dt
221272
In other words Tow is fibre in running length and staple fibre is obtained by cutting it into required short length
On an examination of the material and the contention the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the material which the respondents had purchased was already man made fibre but in running length
All that the respondents did in relation to it was to cut it into staple length after some manual sorting and straightening
The question therefore is whether cutting the long fibre into short fibre resulted into a new and different articles of commerce
Now it is well settled how to determine whether there was manufacture or not
This Court held in the case of Union of India vs Delhi Cloth  General Mills  that manufacture  means to bring into existence a new substance and does not mean merely to produce some change in a substance emphasis supplied
It is true that etymological word manufacture  properly construed would doubtless cover the transformation but the question is whether that transformation brings about fundamental change a new substance is brought into existence or a new different article having distinctive name character or use results from a particular process or a particular activity
The taxable event under the Excise Law is manufacture 
See in this connection Empire Industries Ltd  Ors etc
vs Union of India  Ors etc
 1985 Suppl
1 SCR page 292 and Ms Ujagar Prints vs Union of India In the instant case it is not disputed that what the appellant did was to cut the running length fibre tow into short length fibre staple fibre
It indubitably brought a change in the substance but did not bring into existence a new substance
The character and use of the substance man made fibre remained the same
It is true that by the change in the length of the fibre it acquired a new name
But since in this case the tariff entry recognised the single description man made fibre  with no further sub division based on length of the fibre and even without any distinct enumeration of the various forms of fibre by cutting long fibres into short ones the respondents did not bring into existence any new product so as to attract any levy under the same tariff entry
Even by cutting the respondents obtained man made fibre
Such cutting therefore involved no manufacture and hence no duty liability can be imposed upon them
1010 In that view of the matter and on the facts found by the Tribunal we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in the view it took and that decision needs no interference
This appeal therefore cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 What fell for consideration in all these matters viz i SLPs
civil Nos 4826 and 7045 of 1987 ii SLP civil No 5240 of 1987 iii CMPs
Nos 12029 3187 in CAs Nos
577 79 of 1987 iv CMPs
16635 and 1691887 in SLP c No 482687 and v Transferred Cases Nos 13 and 14 of 1987 with CMPs
16887 89 and 1701887 was a common question of law whether equity shares in two companies ie 1000000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd and 1718344 shares in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Ltd held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills vested in the Central Government under section 3 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1986
The other subsidiary question was whether the immovable properties namely bungalow No 1 and Administrative Block Civil Lines Kanpur had also vested in the government
There were six original proceedings initiated by various parties which gave rise to these civil appeals special leave petitions and transferred cases before this Court
These were On 18th February 1987 a suit was filed before the Delhi High Court by one Naresh Kumar Barti against Dr Raja Ram Jaipuria Swadeshi Polytex and others for an injunction restraining the company from holding the 17th annual general meeting on the ground that 34 shares in the Swadeshi Polytex vested in the National Textile Corporation NTC in view of sections 3 and 4 of the Act
In the suit an application was also filed praying that in the event of the annual general meeting of the company being allowed to be held an independent Chairman should be appointed to conduct the meeting
The High Court 963 refused to pass any order in view of an order already passed by the Allahabad High Court
Against this order of the Delhi High Court two special leave petitions were filed in this Court one by Doypack Systems Pvt
Ltd defendant No 10 in the Delhi Suit which came to registered as Civil Appeal No 577 of 1987 after the grant of special leave and the other by Naresh Kumar Barti the plaintiff in the Delhi Suit which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No 578 of 1987 after the grant of special leave
On 24th February 1987 one Bari Prasad Aggarwal filed a suit in the court of the Third Additional Civil Judge Kanpur praying inter alia that Shri Raja Ram Jaipuria should not preside over the 17th annual general meeting of the company
The application for an interim injunction filed in the suit was dismissed
In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Allahabad High Court an order was passed by the High Court on 2nd March 1987 appointing Shri MP Wadhawan as the Chairman of the said annual general meeting
Against this order dated 2nd March 1987 passed by the Allahabad High Court Ms Doypack System Pvt Ltd preferred a special leave petition in this Court which after the grant of leave was registered as Civil Appeal No 577 of 1987
The three special leave petitions were heard together as Civil Appeals Nos 577 578 and 579 of 1987 and disposed of by this Court by a common order on 6th March 1987 appointing Shri Jaswant Singh as the Chairman of the said annual general meeting
On 26th February 1987 another suit Suit No 506 of 1987 was filed in the Delhi High Court by Mukesh Bhasin for a declaration that Swadeshi Cotton and Swadeshi Mining had no right in respect of 34 of the share holdings in Swadeshi Polytex and that the said shares were vested in the NTC by virtue of the said Act
By order dated 9th March 1987 the High Court disposed of that application and granted injunction restraining defendants Nos 3 and 4 in that suit from exercising any right whatsoever attached to the 34 shares of defendant No 2 held by them and particularly any voting right in the annual general meeting scheduled to be held on the 9th March 1987 till the decision of the suit
This order was brought to the notice of this Court by CMP forming part of the Civil Appeals Nos
577 579 of 1987
On 9th March 1987 on that CMP this Court passed an order directing that NTC Swadeshi Cotton and Swadeshi Mining all shall be entitled to vote at the annual general meeting and the question as to who were the rightful voters would be decided by the Chairman of the meeting etc
This was the Transferred Case No 14 of 1987
964 One Mukesh Jasmani a shareholder in Swadeshi Polytex filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court
The High Court by its order dt
7th March 1987 dismissed that writ petition observing that Swadeshi Cotton and Swadeshi Mining would be entitled to vote at the 17th annual general meeting in respect of their shares which according to NTC had vested in them
Against this order Doypack Systems preferred the Special Leave Petition civil No 3112 of 1987
This Court passed orders on this petition directing that the meeting would be held under the chairmanship of Shri Jaswant Singh notwithstanding any order made by any Court
This Court also vacated the operative portion of the directions contained in the order dated 7th March 1987 of the Allahabad High Court
On 6th April 1987 Ms Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company filed a civil writ petition Writ Petition No 2214 of 1987 in the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench for stay of the operation of the letters dated 2430 March 1987 addressed by NTC to Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Shareholders for removal of the Directors of Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Ltd The High Court passed an order on the 6th April 1987 staying the operation of the said letters
Against that order Ms Doypack Systems Pvt
Ltd filed Special Leave Petition No 4826 of 1987 and NTC also filed a Special Leave Petition No 5240 of 1987 in this Court
By an order dated 5th May 1987 this Court directed that Suit No 506 of 1987 in the Delhi High Court and the Writ Petition No 2214 of 1987 in the Allahabad High Court be transferred to this Court which were registered in this Court as Transferred cases Nos
14 and 13 of 1987 respectively
NTC filed a civil suit in the District Court Kanpur seeking declaration of its title in respect of the shrubbery property in Kanpur
The court refused any interlocutory injunction in the suit against which an appeal was preferred before the High Court of Allahabad and the same was dismissed
Consequently NTC filed a Special Leave Petition No 7045 of 1987 in this Court
Disposing of the matters the Court  HELD Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Co Ltd and Others submitted that the shares in question did not vest in the Central Government
976B 965 By the Act Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1986 on the appointed day every textile undertaking and the right title and interest of the company in relation to every textile mill of such textile undertakings were transferred to and vested in the Central Government and such textile undertakings would be deemed to include all assets
In the context of this provision the reliance on the decision of this Court in Balkrishnan Gupta and Others vs Swadeshi Polytex Ltd and Others   was not appropriate
978D E It appears from the written statement filed by NTC on 8th February 1987 in the suit filed by one GG Bakshi in Ghaziabad Court it was claimed that NTC was entitled to take over company s shares and investments
On 2430th March 1987 NTC issued notice to the petitioners 1 and 2 stating that they were entitled to shares
It was urged by Shri Nariman counsel for Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Co Ltd  Ors that this belated assertion indicated that the shares were not intended to be taken over
The Court was unable to accept this suggestion or to draw that inference
It did not logically follow
979G H 980A Before dealing with the main question the Court considered an application made by Shri Nariman for the production of certain documents
The petitioner in Transferred Case No 13 of 1987 had sought production of the documents
It was contended inter alia that the production of those documents was necessary to establish that the shares were never intended to be taken over and these were never considered as part of the textile undertaking and that the documents were definitely relevant as they would throw light on the merits of the case
The production of the documents was resisted by the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India on the ground that the documents were not relevant and in any event most of them were privileged being part of the documents leading to the tendering of the advice by the Cabinet to the President as contemplated by Article 742 of the Constitution
989B C 990A Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decisions of this Court in a number of cases the Court was of the opinion that the documents in question were not relevant and also that the Cabinet papers are protected from disclosure not by reason of their contents but because of the class to which they belong the Cabinet papers also include papers brought into existence for the purpose of preparing submission to the Cabinet and it is the duty of this Court to 966 prevent disclosure where Article 742 is applicable
The Court was unable to accept the prayer of the petitioner to direct disclosures and production of the documents sought for
993F G 994H Coming to the main question involved reading the provisions of section 31 section 41 and section 2k of the Act each throwing light on the other it follows that a under the first limb of section 31 of the Act every textile undertaking b under the second limb of section 32 every right title and interest of the company in relation to every such undertaking is transferred and vested c the deeming provision of section 41 amplifies and enlarges both the limbs of the vesting section being section 31 d the definition of the section is read into these provisions to give a wider meaning and scope to the vesting provision and to what is transferred or vested
997G H 998A Sections 7 and 8 of the Act relied upon by the petitioners being provisions for payment of amounts and for the issue of shares by NTC respectively will have no bearing on the scope of the vesting provision
As to what properties have vested cannot proceed on the hypothesis that there is a clear numerical or mathematical link between the quantum of compensation and the items of property vested
This correlation with regard to such legislation is not available
998B Section 8 refers to the payments of the amounts by Union of India to the company
It has no bearing either on the vesting section or on section 7 except that the figure of Rs24 crores 32 lakhs was introduced into section 7
998C D In this case a nationalisation statute is concerned
Even with other independent management statutes in respect of textile undertakings a series of decisions have upheld the view that the shares vest in the Government
See National Textile Corporation Ltd vs Sitaram Mills 1986 Supp
SCC 117 Minerva Mills vs Union of India   Goverdhan Das Narasingh Das Daga vs Union of India  Vidharba Mills Berar Ltd vs Union of India and Fine Knitting Co Ltd vs Union of India The above provide the informed basis on which the Court makes construction of sections 3 and 4 of the Act
998G H 999A B The expressions and all other rights and interest in or arising out of such property as were immediately before the appointed day in the ownership possession power or control of the company in relation to the said undertakings appearing in sub section 1 of section 4 of the 967 Act indicates that the shares which have been purchased out of the funds of the textile undertakings and which have been held for the benefit of the said textile undertakings would come within the scope of section 4 of the Act and thus would also vest in the Central Government under section 3
The origin of these shares and their connection with the textile undertakings had been fully corroborated
The textile business was the only business of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills
There was inter connection and inter relation between all the six undertakings
Investments in Swadeshi Polytex Limited from the funds of Kanpur undertaking were always made
Investments in Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Ltd were always made from the funds of the Kanpur undertaking
Assetsinvestments held and used for the benefit of the textile business of SCM were carried on in its textile undertakings
999B E The words in the statute must Prima facie be given their ordinary meaning
Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt that construction ought to prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary
Nothing was shown to warrant that literal construction should not be given effect to
See Chandavarkar SR Rao vs Asha Lata  at 476 approving 44 Halsbury s Laws of England 4th ed
paragraph 856 p 552 Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Colliery Ltd 1940 Appeal Cases 1014 at 1022
It must be emphasised that interpretation must be in consonance with the Directive Principles of the State Policy in Articles 39b and c of the Constitution999E G The object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Parliament as expressed in the Act
The dominant purpose in constructing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute considering it as a whole and in its context
That intention and therefore the meaning of the statute are particularly to be sought in the words used in the statute itself which must if they are plain and unambiguous be applied as they stand
In the present case the words used represented the real intention of the Parliament as the Court found not only from the clear words used but also from the very purpose of the vesting of the shares
If the fact is borne in mind that these shares were acquired from out of the investments made by these two companies and furthermore that the assets of the company as such minus the shares were negative and further the Act in question was passed to give effect to the principles enunciated in clauses b and c of Article 39 of the Constitution no doubt was left that the shares vested in the Central Government by operation of sections 3 and 4 of the 968 Act
See in this connection the observations of Halsbury s Laws of England 4th Edition Volume 44 paragraph 856 p 522 and the cases noted therein
999G H 1000A C There is no exact correlation between the figure of capital reserve and the figure of investments
That could not be
These could never be equal
The submission of the petitioners failed to take into account the fact the undertakings other than the Kanpur undertaking also had capital reserve even though there was no obligation that these were excluded assets in respect of other undertakings and there were no figures of investments therein
1000D E Contemporanea Expositio is a well settled principle or doctrine which applies only to the construction of ambiguous language in old statutes
Reliance might be placed in this connection on Maxwell 13th Ed page 269
It is not applicable to modern statutes
Reference may be made to GP Singh Principles of Statutory Interpretation 3rd Ed pages 238239
The leading case on Contemporanea expositio is Comppell College Belfast vs Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland  in which House of Lords made it clear that the doctrine is to be applied only to the construction of ambiguous language in the very old statutes
Lord Watson said in Clyde Navigation Trustees vs Laird 1983 8 AC 658 that Contemporanea expositio could have no application to a modern Act
The Court therefore rejected the attempt of the petitioners to lead the Court to this forbidden track by referring to various extraneous matters
Furthermore those external aids sought before the Court did not support the petitioners  approach to this question at all
1000F H 1001A Sections 3 and 4 of the Act evolve a legislative policy and set out the parameters within which it has to be implemented
The Court could not find that there was any special intention to exclude the shares in this case as seen from the existence of at least four other Acquisition Acts which used identical phraseology in sections 3 and 4 and the other sections as well Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd Acquisition and Transfer of Aluminium Undertakings Act 1984 Amritsar Oil Works Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1982 Britannia Engineering Company Mohmeh Unit and the Arthur Butler and Company Muzaffarpore Ltd Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1978 and the Ganesh Flour Mills Company Limited Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1984
1001E F 969 It appeared to the Court that the expression forming part of appearing in section 27 could not be so read with section 41 as would have the effect of restricting or cutting down the scope and ambit of the vesting provisions in section 31
The expression pertaining to did not mean forming part of
Even assuming that the expression pertaining to appearing in the first limb of section 41 means forming part of it would mean that only such assets as had a direct nexus with the textile mills would fall under the first limb of section 41
The shares in question would still vest in the Central Government under the second limb of section 41 of the Act since the shares were bought out of the income of the textile mills and were held by the company in relation to such mills
The shares would also fall in the second limb of section 31 being right and title of the company in relation to the textile mills1002C E On the construction of sections 3 and 4 the Court came to the conclusion that the shares vested in the Central Government even if sections 3 and 4 were read in conjunction with sections 7 and 8 of the Act on the well settled principles
The expression in relation to  has been interpreted to be words of the widest amplitude
See National Textile Corporation Ltd and Ors
vs Sitaram Mills Ltd supra
Section 4 appears to be an expanding section
It introduces a deeming provision which is intended to enlarge the meaning of a particular word or include matters which otherwise may or may not fall within the main provisions
It is well settled that the word includes  is an inclusive definition and expands the meaning
1002F G To leave a company the net wealth of which was negative at the time of take over of the management with the shares held by it as investment in the other company was in the Court s opinion not only to defeat the principles of Articles 39b and c of the Constitution but it would permit the company to reap the fruits of its mismanagement
That would be an absurd situation
It had to be borne in mind that the net wealth of the company at the time of take over was negative hence sections 3 and 4 could be meaningfully read if all the assets including the shares were considered to be taken over by the acquisition
That was the only irresistible conclusion that followed from the construction of the documents and the history of the Act which expressly recites that it was to ensure the principles enunciated in clauses b and c of Article 39 of the Constitution
The Act must be so read that it further ensures such meaning and secures the ownership and control of the material resources to the community to subserve the common good to see that the operation of the economic system does not result in injustice
1003F H 1004A 970 The shares vested in the Central Government
Accordingly the shares in question were vested in the NTC and it had right over the said 34 per cent of the share holdings
1004B The 1000000 shares in the Swadeshi Polytex Ltd and 1718344 in the Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Ltd held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills vested in the Central Government under sections 3 and 4 of the Act
1004B C In view of the amplitude of the language used the immovable properties namely the Bungalow No 1 and the Administrative Block Civil Lines Kanpur also vested in the NTC
1004C D In that view of the matter in Transferred Case No 13 of 1987 the Writ Petition No 2214 of 1987 was dismissed
All interim orders were vacated
This would dispose of the various other SLPs and CMPs connected with the Lucknow writ petition being SLP Civil No 4826 of 1987 filed by Doypack Systems Pvt Ltd SLP Civil No 5240 of 1987 filed by NTC
CMPs 16918 and 16919 of 1987 in SLP No 4826 of 1987 would stand disposed of in the above light
1004D F In the Transferred Case No 14 of 1987 in Suit No 506 of 1987 the Court held that 10 lakhs and 17 lakhs equity shares and the Swadeshi House at Kanpur and all the rights title and interest attached therewith related to the textile undertaking of defendant No 3 and they vested in NTC with effect from 1st April 1985 and defendants Nos 3 and 4 were restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from dealing with them in any manner whatsoever
Defendant No 2 was restrained by permanent injunction from recognising defendants Nos 3 and 4 as owners of the aforesaid shares and the Swadeshi House
1004F G Defendant No 2 was directed to enter the name of defendant No 1 namely NTC in its register of members and to treat the said defendant No 1 as its share holder instead of defendants Nos 3 and 4 in respect of the shares of defendant No 2 held by them
In view of the provisions of law under section 108 of the Companies Act as there was transmission of shares by operation of law rectification was not necessary1004H 1005A B Civil Appeals Nos
577 to 579 of 1987 were disposed of in the above terms and it was directed that the 17th annual general meeting be held in accordance with law after giving proper notice under the 971 Chairmanship of Shri Jaswant Singh
1005C CMPs Nos
12760 of 1987 in Civil Appeal No 577 of 1987 would stand disposed of in terms of the orders in the Transferred Case No 14 of 1987 and it was directed that the Chairman should act in accordance with the aforesaid decision and NTC should be considered to be entitled to vote
CMP 16887 of 1987 was rejected
1005D CMP 16888 of 1987 was an application by Doypack Systems Ltd to be impleaded as a party respondent in the Transferred Case No 13 of 1987
Doypack Systems was permitted to argue and was heard as a party
No further order was necessary
1005E CMPs Nos 16889 and 17018 of 1987 were allowed
CMP No 18268 of 1987 was disposed of with the direction that no further documents needed to be inspected
In view of the orders the other CMPs were no longer necessary to be disposed of
1005F Irrespective of any order passed by any court the 17th annual general meeting should be held in accordance with law to be presided over by Shri Jaswant Singh recognising NTC as the rightful owner of the disputed shares
1005G Balkrishan Gupta  Ors
vs Swadeshi Polytex Ltd and Ors   Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India   National Textile Corporation vs Sita Ram Mills   Minerva Mills
vs Union of India   Goverdhan Das Narasingh Das Daga vs Union of India   Vidharba Mills Berar Ltd vs Union of India  Kumari Sunita Ramachandra vs State of Maharashtra and another  at 704 c to e Doctor Mrs Sushma Sharma vs State of Rajasthan  at 263 Fine Knitting Co Ltd vs Union of India  State of West Bengal vs Union of India 1964 1 SCR 371 at 379 380 381 and 382 The Central Bank of India vs Their Workmen  at 217 Babaji Kondaji Garad vs Nasik Merchants Co_operative Bank Ltd Nasik and Others   Paragraphs 14 and 15 Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd  another  at 1029 KP Verghese vs The Income tax Officer Ernakulam and another   Chern Taong Shang  Another etc etc
vs Commander SD Baijal  Ors JT  Auckland Jute Co Ltd vs Tulsi Chandra Goswami at 244 RM ARARRMAR
Umayhal Achi vs Lakshmi Achi and Others  Black_Clawson International Ltd vs Papierwerke Waldhof Achaffenburg AG  at 613 SP Gupta vs Union of India and others 1982 2 SCR 365 at 594 State of UP vs Raj Narain   The Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd vs Union of India and others writ petition No 2401 of 1983 State of Bihar vs Kripalu Shankar  at 1559 Bachittar Singh vs State of Punjab 1962 Suppl
3 SCR 713 Air Canada and others vs Secretary of State and another at 180 State Wakf Board vs Abdul Aziz AIR 1968 Madras 79 81 Nitai Charan Bagchi vs Suresh Chandra Paul  Shyam Lal vs M Shyamlal AIR 1933 All 649 76 Corpus Juris Secundum 621 RC Cooper vs Union of India  at 567 568 635 Khajamian Wakf Estates etc
vs State of Madras  another   at 796 B E Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia and others etc
vs Union of India and others  at 496 P  G Chandavarkar SR Rao vs Asha Lata   476 44 Halsbury s Laws of England 4th Ed
paragraph 856 at page 552 Nokes vs Doncaster Amalgamated Colliery Limited 1940 Appeal Cases 1014 1022 Campbell College Belfast vs Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland  Clyde Navigation Trustees vs Laird  The Corporation of the City of Nagpur vs Its Employees   Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs Pranlal Javanand Thakar and others 1975 1 SCR 534 Palmer s Company Law 24th Ed  Mahadeo Lal Agarwala and another vs The New Darjeeling Union Tea Co Ltd and others AIR 1952 Cal
58 and Unity Company Pvt Ltd vs Diamond Sugar Mills and others
AIR