Judgment Case ID: 5370

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 1197 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.1987 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No. 382 of 1986. K.K. Venugopal	 A.K. Chitale	 Deepak K. Thakur and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. Y.S. Chitale	 M.S. 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. 12	12	327.50	 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 and/or regulated by any law of the State of M.P. 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 C.P.C. 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 M.P. and not merely a proce dural law	 within the meaning of Section 40 of the C.P.C. 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 2(3) defines relief undertaking and section 2(4) a state industrial undertaking	 as follows: 254 "2(3) "relief undertaking" means a State industrial undertaking in respect of which a declaration under Section 3 is in force: 2(4) "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 law	usage	 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 1(2) 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 46(2) 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 U.P. 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 46(2) 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 46(2) of the Indian Income tax Act	 and that accordingly before forwarding the requisite certificate under section 46(2) 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 2	000 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. P.S.S. 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	 M.P. was declared a 'relief undertaking ' by notification dated 15.11.1980 issued by the State Government under section 3 of the Act and the time extended by subsequent orders till 15.11.1987. 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 26.9.1986. 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]