http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NAGAMMAI COTTON MILLS ETC,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ASSTT. DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE OF THETEXTILES COMMISSIONER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)    21        1996 SCALE  (3)442

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH             CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6775-6810 OF 1996 [@  S.L.P.(C)   Nos.  1107/96,  17717-25/95,     1824-25/96, 1906/96,     20810/95,   23368-70/95,  26177/95,   27110/95, 27112-15/95,   27116-17/95,       27964/95,     28425-26/95, 4371/96,       5351-56/96,    8961-64/96   [CC 627/96], 8968 [CC 915/96], 8969-74 [CC 916/96) of 1996)                       O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted,      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      When the  matter had  come up  in  the  first  instance before another  Bench in  S.L.P.(C) No. 6611/95, pursuant to the concession  made by  the  learned  Additional  Solicitor General, by  order dated September 25,1995 this Court passed the order as under:      "In view  of the  statement made by      learned    Additional     Solicitor      General   that   if   the   current      obligation    pursuant    to    the      Notification dated  March 20,  1995      is carried  out by  the petitioner,      the respondents  will not hold them      liable for  any past liability, the      petitioner does not intend to press      the  SLP   which   is   accordingly      disposed  or   as  withdrawn.   The      learned counsel  for the petitioner      has submitted  that the  petitioner      has not raised any objection to its      prospective  liability   under  the      said Notification  dated March  20,      1995."      Subsequently, the appellant claimed the same relief. In view of  the liability  which sought  to be  avoided by  the appellants the  Union of  India had  filed a Review Petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

before the  Bench which  came to be dismissed by order dated March 13, 1996. Since the same question is involved in these cases, the  same order  should equally  follow. The  learned counsel for  the Union  of India  seeks to  contend that the concession relates to the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1995.  The liability  now sought to be wiped out relates in addition  to the above it also relates to the period from April 1,  1990 to September 30, 1992. He sought to make that distinction and  contends that  the matter  involves further investigation. We  do not  find any force in  the submission made by  the learned  counsel When  the past  liability  was sought to  be wiped out for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 31,  1995, the same principle per force would apply to the previous  period from  April 1,  1990 to  September  30, 1992.      Under those  circumstances, all the appeals are allowed and the orders are quashed as prayed for. However, the order of this  Court does not preclude the Government to take such appropriate steps  as are  open to  them under  law for  any future liability. No costs.