The Petitioners seek quashing of impugned Order of attachment as well as attachment warrant and consequent panchanama issued by Respondent No. 1, on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 along with other consequential reliefs. Held: The agreement concerned is an agreement of conducting the business of manufacture of sugar on rental basis for a specific period and it clearly shows that no transfer of the establishment of Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana to petitioner Sugar factory is contemplated by virtue of the said agreement. What is affected is an agreement for conducting business to manufacture sugar by crushing sugar-cane. The agreement amounts only to a licence to the petitioners to enter on the immovable property for a specific purpose, without creating either any lease, or any other incident of transfer contemplated under Section 17B of the said Act and, therefore, it must be said that the action between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 under the impugned agreement cannot be considered as "transfer" within the meaning of Section 17B of the said Act and, therefore, no question would arise to invoke the said provision to fasten the liability of Gangapur Sugar Factory -Respondent No. 2 in respect of payment of provident fund dues prior to the date of agreement between the parties on the petitioners. Therefore, on this point also, the impugned action of attachment of the goods belonging to the petitioners, which were already under pledge with Respondent No. 3 was, void ab initio, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. For the reasons stated above, in view of judges the petition succeeds as the action taken by Respondent No. 1 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up
Manupatra Legal Database
Manupatra Round up
No comments:
Post a Comment