Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4818       OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4706 of 2006)

National Textile Corpn. (UP) Ltd.                  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr. Raja Ram Jaipuria & Ors.               ....  Respondent(s)

   WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4819       OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4773 of 2006)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final judgment  

and order  dated 25.11.2005 passed by  the High  Court  of  

Judicature at Allahabad in Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 25090 of  

1994 and 30122 of 1996 whereby the High Court dismissed  

the petitions filed by the National Textile Corporation (U.P.)  

Ltd.-the appellant herein.  

1

Page 2

SLP (Civil) No. 4706 of 2006

3) Brief facts:

(a) In the year 1921, the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company  

Limited (SCMCL) was incorporated as a private company and  

converted into a public company in 1923 which was engaged  

in the business of activity of operating and managing textile  

mills.  The SCMCL acquired property at Civil Lines, Kanpur,  

Uttar  Pradesh  on  which  an  integrated  complex  popularly  

known  as  ‘Swadeshi  House’  was  constructed.   The  said  

House  consisted  of  three  buildings,  viz.,  Bungalow  No.  1  

which was used prior to 1971 as the Registered Office of the  

SCMCL and after 1971 it was used for general meetings of  

the Board of Directors and also as a Guest House, Bungalow  

No.  2  was  in  the  physical  possession  of  the  Managing  

Director  of  SCMCL  and  Bungalow  No.  3  was  the  

Administrative Block of the SCMCL.

(b) The  Central  Government,  vide  notification  dated  

13.04.1978,  under  Section  18AA  of  the  Industrial  

Development  Regulation  Act,  1951,  took  over  the  

management  of  six  textile  undertakings  of  the  SCMCL  

2

Page 3

including  the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills,  Kanpur   and  the  

National  Textile  Corporation  Limited,  New  Delhi  (NTC),  a  

Government undertaking, was appointed as the authorized  

representative under the said takeover.  As a result  of the  

takeover,  the NTC took possession and custody of various  

properties  belonging  to  the  SCMCL  including  the  Guest  

House and the Administrative Block.  However, Bungalow No.  

2 continued to be in the physical possession of Dr. Raja Ram  

Jaipuria, the then Director of the SCMCL (Respondent No. 1  

herein).   

(c) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.1978 of take over,  

the SCMCL filed Writ  Petition No.  408 of  1978 before the  

High Court  of  Delhi.   In  the  High Court,  vide order  dated  

04.05.1978, a working arrangement between the parties was  

made out wherein Respondent No. 1 herein was permitted to  

continue the physical possession of the residential bungalow  

on the condition that the same will  not be disposed of or  

alienated in any way to any outsider.  Ultimately, by order  

dated  01.05.1979,  the  High  Court  upheld  the  notification  

dated 13.04.1978 but certain assets were excluded from the  

3

Page 4

purview  of  the  same including  the  ‘Swadeshi  House’  and  

‘Shrubbery’-the residence of the Secretary of the SCMCL.  

(d) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment with regard  

to the validity and legality of the order of takeover, Swadeshi  

Cotton Mills, National Textile Corporation and Union of India  

preferred Civil  Appeal  Nos.  1629,  1857 and 2087 of 1979  

respectively  before this  Court.   This  Court,  vide judgment  

dated 13.01.1981 in  Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs.  Union of  

India (1981) 1 SCC 664 held the said takeover invalid on the  

ground  that  no  opportunity  of  hearing  was  given  to  the  

SCMCL before the takeover.   

(e) On 19.04.1986,  the Central  Government promulgated  

the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills  Company  (Acquisition  and  

Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1986.  Thereafter, on  

30.05.1986,  the  said  ordinance  was  replaced  by  the  

Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills  Company  Limited  (Acquisition  and  

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Swadeshi  

Act’).   As per Section 3 of the Swadeshi Act, every textile  

undertaking and the right, title and interest of the SCMCL in  

the  said  textile  undertaking  stood  transferred  and  vested  

4

Page 5

with the Central Government.  The transferred undertakings  

were  further  transferred  and vested  in  the  NTC.   Several  

proceedings were instituted by the parties as a result of the  

acquisition of the undertakings of the SCMCL.          

(f) One Mukesh Bhasin, a minority shareholder of Swadeshi  

Polytex Limited (SPL), filed a Civil Suit being No. 506 of 1987  

before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi praying for a  

declaration and injunction against the SCMCL on the ground  

that all the investments and assets vest with the NTC which  

is the rightful owner of the property after coming into force  

of  the Swadeshi  Act.   In  the said  suit,  he also sought  an  

injunction  against  SPL  from  recognizing  SCMCL  and  

Swadeshi Mining (subsidiary of SCMCL) as the owners of the  

Swadeshi House.    

(g) Swadeshi Cotton Mills and SCMCL also preferred a Writ  

Petition being No.  2214 of  1987 before the High Court  of  

Judicature  at  Allahabad  (Lucknow  Bench)  claiming  that  

equity shares held by the SCMCL in SPL and Swadeshi Mining  

and  other  “excluded  assets”  should  be  declared  to  be  

exempted from the scope and ambit of the Swadeshi Act.   

5

Page 6

(h) The aforementioned Civil Suit No. 506 of 1987 and Writ  

Petition No. 2214 of 1987 were transferred to this Court and  

numbered  as  Transfer  Case  Nos.  14  and  13  of  1987  

respectively.  This Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.1988, in  

M/s Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and  

Others (1988) 2 SCC 299, allowed Transfer Case No. 14 of  

1987 and dismissed Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987 and held  

that the ownership and control of the SCMCL vests with the  

NTC.   It  was  also  held  that  Bungalow  No.  1  and  the  

Administrative Block, Civil Lines, Kanpur also vested in the  

Central Government.  

(i) As  the  SCMCL  failed  to  handover  the  possession  of  

Bungalow No. 2 of Swadeshi House, the NTC filed Civil Misc.  

Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987  

praying for a direction to the SCMCL to handover the vacant  

possession of Bungalow No. 2.  Vide order dated 03.08.1989,  

the petition was dismissed without any order with liberty to  

move the appropriate court.  In view of the said order, the  

National  Textile  Corporation  (U.P.)  Ltd.  (the  appellant  

herein),  which  was  a  successor-in-interest  to  the  NTC  

6

Page 7

preferred  Criminal Complaint No. 1661 of 1991 against the  

respondent herein and others in the Court of Metropolitan  

Magistrate,  Kotwali,  Kanpur  under  Section  27  of  the  

Swadeshi  Act  for  possession  of  the  said  Bungalow.   Vide  

order dated 18.02.1993, the said complaint got dismissed in  

view  of  the  ruling  given  in  Doypack  (supra) that  only  

Bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block vested with the  

Central Government.   

(j) Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  18.02.1993,  the  

NTC  filed  Criminal  Revision  No.  86  of  1993  before  the  

Session Judge, Kanpur which also got dismissed vide order  

dated  30.10.1993  holding  that  the  NTC  failed  to  prove  

beyond doubt that the said Bungalow vested with Central  

Government with a direction to move the appropriate court  

in terms of the order dated 03.08.1989.

(k) Aggrieved by the same, the NTC preferred Writ Petition  

No. 25090 of 1994 before the High Court of Allahabad.  In  

the  meantime,  the  NTC filed  Contempt  Petition  No.  75  of  

2005  in  Transfer  Case  No.  14  of  1987  before  this  Court  

alleging violation of the judgment in  Doypack (supra) but  

7

Page 8

the same got dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2006 on the  

ground  of  omission  to  disclose  about  the  instant  

proceedings.  Vide order dated 25.11.2005, the High Court  

dismissed the above said writ petition.                   

(l)  Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the  

appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special  

leave.

SLP (Civil) No. 4773 of 2006

(m) On  26.10.1989,  the  NTC  also  moved  an  application  

under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of  

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short ‘the PP Act’) for  

eviction of the respondent herein from the said Bungalow on  

the ground that in  Doypack (supra),  it  has already been  

held that the Swadeshi House (which also includes Bungalow  

No. 2) vested with the NTC and there is no question as to the  

title of the respondent herein.  During the pendency of the  

proceedings before the Estate Officer, Shri Rajaram Jaipuria  

(Respondent No. 2 herein) removed certain valuables from  

the  Bungalow  No.  2.   The  NTC  moved  an  application  for  

restraining the Respondents herein for the same before the  

8

Page 9

Estate  Officer  which  was  allowed  vide  order  dated  

02.05.1993.   

(n) Being  aggrieved,  M/s  Ganesh  Synthetics  Pvt.  Ltd  

(Respondent  No.  16  herein),  a  related  entity  of  SCMCL,  

preferred a Writ Petition being No. 16091 of 1993 before the  

High  Court.  The  High  Court,  by  order  dated  11.05.1993,  

restrained the respondents from removing any article kept in  

Bungalow No. 2.  Vide order dated 05.08.1994, the Estate  

Officer  rejected  all  the  preliminary  objections  filed  by  the  

SCMCL.  The respondents herein preferred an Appeal being  

No. 228 of 1994 under Section 9 of the PP Act before the  

District Court, Kanpur.   

(o) Vide  order  dated  01.05.1996,  the  above  said  appeal  

was  allowed  holding  that  Doypack  (supra) had  not  

addressed  the  issue  relating  to  Bungalow  No.  2.   Being  

aggrieved, the NTC preferred Writ Petition being No. 30122  

of 1996 before the High Court.  The High Court, vide order  

dated 25.11.2005 dismissed the said petition.           

9

Page 10

(p)  Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the  

appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special  

leave.

4) Heard  Ms.  Indira  Jaising,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General for the appellant, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior  

counsel  for  the  contesting  respondents  and  Mr.  K.V.  

Vishwanathan,  learned  senior  counsel  and  Mr.  Gautam  

Narayan, learned counsel for the newly impleaded parties –  

Kanpur Builders and Ministry of Textiles respectively.   

5) It  is  the  definite  case  of  the  appellant-NTC  that  

Swadeshi  House  was  and  has  always  consisted  of  an  

integrated  complex  comprising  of  three  buildings,  viz.,  

Bungalow  No.2  (used  as  the  personal  residence  of  the  

Directors),  Bungalow  No.1  (used  as  Guest  House  of  the  

Company)  and  an  Administrative  Block  besides  Servants’  

Quarters and adjacent land and because of Section 3 of the  

Swadeshi Act, every textile undertaking and the right, title  

and interest  of  the  SCMCL in  the  said  textile  undertaking  

stood transferred and vested with the Central Government  

and further transferred and vested in the NTC.  Among the  

10

Page 11

properties owned by the SCMCL, now we are concerned only  

about the ownership of Bungalow No.2.   

6) On the other hand,  it  is  the case of the respondents  

that  the  properties  of  SCMCL,  Kanpur,  vested  with  the  

Central Government, did not include Bungalow No.2 as the  

same was always the property of the SCMCL and not of its  

Kanpur Mills.  It is their assertion that the land on which the  

SCMCL is constructed was purchased in the year 1921 and  

the building was constructed soon thereafter.  The said land  

and house were not purchased/constructed from the profits  

generated by the SCMCL, Kanpur but from the shareholders’  

fund(s) arranged otherwise.  It is also their assertion that the  

said  land,  viz.,  Bungalow  No.2,  was  never  vested  in  the  

appellant as decided by this Court in Doypack (supra).  It is  

also brought to our notice by the respondents that Bungalow  

Nos. 1 and 2 have been recorded by the Kanpur Municipality  

as  separate  premises  ever  since  the  said  two  bungalows  

were  constructed.   It  is  also  pointed  out  that  at  present  

Bungalow  No.1  is  numbered  as  Premises  No.  16/15  and  

Bungalow  No.2  is  numbered  as  Premises  No.  16/14,  Civil  

11

Page 12

Lines,  Kanpur  and  both  are  separate  premises  having  

separate boundaries.   

7) In  view  of  the  above,  it  is  relevant  to  mention  the  

following provisions of the Swadeshi Act:   

(i) In Section 2(c) of the Swadeshi Act, there is a reference  

to  a  registered  office  of  the  SCMCL  being  at  “Swadeshi  

House”.   

(ii) The expression “textile undertakings” has been defined  

in Section 2(k) to mean the following six textile undertakings  

of SCMCL:

(a) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur;

(b) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry;

(c) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini;

(d) the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan;

(e) the Udaipur Cotton Mills, Udaipur;  

(f) the Rae Bareli Textile Mills, Rae Bareli;  

(iii) Section 3 of the Swadeshi Act transfers and vests the  

right, title and interest of the SCMCL “to every such textile  

undertaking”  in  the Central  Government  and thereafter  in  

the National Textile Corporation (NTC).

12

Page 13

(iv) Section  4  of  the  Swadeshi  Act  defines  the  effect  of  

“vesting” as under:

“(1) The textile undertakings referred to in Section 3 shall  be  deemed  to  include  all  assets,  rights,  lease-holds,  powers,  authorities  and  privileges  and  all  property,  movable  and  immovable,  including  lands,  buildings,  workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment,  cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments  and books debts pertaining to the textile undertakings and  all  other  rights  and  interests  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  whether  within or outside India, and all books of accounts,  registers  and  all  other  documents  of  whatever  nature  relating  thereto.”

(v) Section 8 of the Swadeshi Act provides a compensation  

of Rs.24,32,00,000/- to be paid to the SCMCL.

(vi) Section 27 deals with Penalties as under:

“27. Penalties

Any person who.:-

(a) having  in  his  possession,  custody  or  control  any  property  forming  part  of  any  of  the  textile  undertaking  wrongfully  withholds  such  property  from  the  National  Textile Corporation; or

(b) wrongfully  obtains  possession  of,  or  retains  any  property forming part of, any of the textile undertaking; or  shall  be punishable with  imprisonment  for  a term which  may extend to two years and with fine which may extend  to ten thousand rupees.

shall  be punishable with  imprisonment  for  a term which  may extend to two years and with fine which may extend  to ten thousand rupees.”

13

Page 14

8) Learned  ASG  has  brought  to  our  notice  that  several  

proceedings were instituted by the parties as a result of the  

acquisition  of  textile  undertakings  of  the  SCMCL.   Two  

significant proceedings are:

(1) “A civil suit instituted by one Mukesh Bhasin on 26.02.1987  before the High Court of Delhi.  In paragraph 3 (xix) of the  said suit, the appellant made the following submissions:

(xix) The Swadeshi House in an integral part of the Kanpur  Undertaking  and  includes  substantial  area  of  land  and  building.  The plaintiff  reasonably and  bona fide believes  that  the  said  House  was  built  in  1921  as  a  part  of  the  textile undertaking of defendant No.3 for the benefit and  use of its business, which at that time consisted only of the  Kanpur Textile Undertaking.”  

In the said suit, the following prayer was sought:

“(a)  that the defendant No.1 is  the rightful  owner of  10  lakhs equity shares of defendant No.2 held by defendant  No.3 and 17,18,000/- equity shares held by defendant No.4  in defendant No.2 and Swadeshi House at Kanpur and all  the rights, title and interest attached therewith are assets  and  investments  pertaining  to  and  relate  to  the  textile  undertaking of defendant No.3 and they vest in defendant  No.1  w.e.f.  1.4.1985  and  defendant  Nos.  3  &  4  be  restrained  by  a  decree  of  permanent  injunction  from  dealing with them in any manner whatsoever.

(b)   Defendant  No.2  should  also  be  restrained  by  permanent injunction from recognizing defendant Nos. 3 &  4  as  owners  of  the  aforesaid  shares  and  Swadeshi  House.”

(2) “The  other  was  a  petition  instituted  by  the  Swadeshi  Mining  and  Manufacturing  Company  Ltd.  (“SMMCL”),  a  subsidiary of SCMCL.  In the said petition, being the civil  W.P. No. 2214 of 1987 instituted on 03.04.1987 in the High  

14

Page 15

Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), SCMCL was petitioner  No.2”.   

The  aforementioned  Civil  Suit  No.  506  of  1987  and  Writ  

Petition No. 2214 of 1987 were transferred to this Court and  

numbered  as  Transfer  Case  Nos.  14  and  13  of  1987  

respectively.  This Court, vide judgment dated 12.02.1988 in  

Doypack (supra) allowed Transfer Case No. 14 of 1987 and  

dismissed Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987.  

9) Both  the  parties  adverted  to  various  paragraphs  in  

Doypack (supra) in extenso.   As a matter of fact, basing  

reliance on  Doypack (supra),  learned ASJ submitted that  

Bungalow  No.2  of  Swadeshi  House,  Kanpur  vested  with  

them.  In the light of the assertion and claim of both the  

sides,  we  have  gone  through  the  entire  judgment  in  

Doypack  (supra).   It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  the  said  

judgment was scrutinized by various courts in earlier legal  

proceedings initiated by the appellant herein and all  such  

proceedings  were  dismissed  by  the  courts  including  this  

Court.   A  thorough analysis  of  the judgment  in  Doypack  

(supra) shows that the issue as to whether Bungalow No.2  

15

Page 16

of the Swadeshi House vested in appellant or not was neither  

considered nor decided by this Court in the said case.  This is  

clear  from  the  plain  reading  of  first  paragraph  of  the  

judgment itself which reads as under:

“1.  What falls  for  consideration in all  these matters is  a  common question of law, namely, whether equity shares in  the  two  companies  i.e.  10,00,000  shares  in  Swadeshi  Polytex Limited and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining  and Manufacturing Company Limited, held by the Swadeshi  Cotton Mills, vest in the Central Government under Section  3  of  the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills  Company  Limited  (Acquisition  and  Transfer  of  Undertakings)  Act,  1986  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  said  Act”).  The  other  subsidiary question is whether the immovable properties,  namely the bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block,  Civil  Lines,  Kanpur have also vested in the Government.  The question as to one more property known as Shrubbery  property whether it has been taken over or not is still to be  argued and is not covered by this judgment.”

10) From  the  above,  the  questions  which  formed  the  

subject matter of Doypack (supra) were as under:

“(a) Whether  equity  shares  in  the  two  companies,  i.e.,  10,00,000  shares  in  Swadeshi  Polytex  Limited  and  17,18,344 shares  in  Swadeshi  Mining  and Manufacturing  Co.  Ltd.  held  by  the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills,  vest  in  the  Central  Government  under  Section  3  of  the  Swadeshi  Cotton  Mills  Co.  Ltd.  (Acquisition  and  Transfer  of  Understandings) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the  Act”).

(b) Whether  the  immovable  properties,  namely,  the  Bungalow No.1 and the Administrative Block,  Civil  Lines,  Kanpur have also vested in the Government.”

16

Page 17

The  abovementioned  questions,  after  detailed  reasonings,  

were answered by this Court in paragraph Nos. 69 and 70 as  

under:

“69. We therefore, reiterate that the shares are vested in  the  Central  Government.  Accordingly  the  shares  in  question are vested in NTC and it has right over the said 34  per cent of the shareholdings.

70. In the aforesaid view of the matter we hold that the  10,00,000  shares  in  Swadeshi  Polytex  Limited  and  17,18,344 shares  in  Swadeshi  Mining  and Manufacturing  Company Limited held by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills vested  in the Central Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the  Act.

71. We  are  further  of  the  opinion  that  in  view  of  the  amplitude of the language used, the immovable properties,  namely, the bungalow No. 1 and the Administrative Block,  Civil Lines, Kanpur have also vested in NTC.”

11) A bare reading of the judgment in  Doypack (supra)  

makes  it  clear  that  the  issue  regarding  vesting  of  the  

Bungalow  No.2  of  Swadeshi  House,  Kanpur  was  not  

considered by this Court in the said judgment.  Hence, the  

very  same  contention  of  the  appellant  is  liable  to  be  

rejected.   

12) As  the  SCMCL  failed  to  handover  the  possession  of  

Bungalow No. 2 of Swadeshi House, the NTC filed Civil Misc.  

Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in Transfer Case No. 13 of 1987  

17

Page 18

praying for a direction to the SCMCL to handover the vacant  

possession  of  Bungalow  No.  2.   The  said  application  was  

disposed  of  by  this  Court  on  03.08.1989  which  reads  as  

under:

“CMP No. 26004 of 1988 :  There will be no order on this  CMP.  This will not prejudice the right of parties to move  the appropriate courts in accordance with law.”

From the  above  order,  it  is  clear  that  this  Court  did  not  

decide the issue relating to Bungalow No.2 of the Swadeshi  

House and had left it open to the appellant to agitate the  

question of  title  as regards the said Bungalow by moving  

before the appropriate court in accordance with law.  It  is  

brought  to  our  notice  that  such  proceedings  were  never  

initiated by the appellant herein.

13) It is useful to point out that despite the dismissal of Civil  

Misc. Petition No. 26004 of 1988 in T.C. No. 13 of 1987, the  

appellant  herein  again  moved  before  this  Court  by  filing  

Contempt Petition No. 75 of 2005 in Transfer Case No. 14 of  

1987  alleging  violation  of  the  judgment  in  Doypack  

(supra).   It  was  alleged  by  the  appellant  in  the  said  

contempt petition that  since the contemnors therein have  

18

Page 19

sold Bungalow No. 2 to one Kanpur Builders Ltd., they have  

violated the judgment in  Doypack (supra) and, therefore,  

they are liable to be punished for contempt.  The Director of  

the  said  Kanpur  Builders  Ltd.  was  also  impleaded  as  

Contemnor No. 3 in the said contempt petition.   By order  

dated 03.02.2006, this Court, dismissed the said contempt  

petition.  After several rounds of litigation, as discussed in  

the paragraphs (supra), the appellant filed Writ Petition No.  

25090  of  1994  before  the  High  Court  of  Allahabad.   By  

judgment dated 25.11.2005, learned single Judge of the High  

Court  dismissed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellant  

herein holding that under Section 27 of Act 30 of 1986 a  

complaint could only have been filed by the appellant if the  

property had vested in them.  It was further held by the High  

Court that,

“……that a complaint under Section 27 of Act 30 of  1986 could only have been filed by the petitioner if the title  of the property in dispute was clearly in their favour.  Both  the  Courts  below have  correctly  assessed  the  facts  and  circumstances of  the case and have rightly  come to the  conclusion that in the absence of having any clear title in  their  favour  the  complaint  under  Section  27  was  misconceived and, therefore, rightly dismissed.”

19

Page 20

14)   In addition to the above said proceedings, the appellant  

herein initiated further proceedings for their eviction under  

Sections 5 and 7 of the PP Act.  Similarly, after rounds of  

litigation, the claim of the appellant herein got rejected and  

finally the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 30122 of  

1996  before  the  High  Court.   The  High  Court,  vide  order  

dated  25.11.2005,  also  dismissed  the  same  and  held  as  

under:

“…..the  learned District  Judge has also  rightly  come the  conclusion  that  Bungalow  No.2  has  not  vested  with  the  petitioner.  This, the learned Judge has said on the basis of  the judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court as referred in  the case of   Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1988 SC  782 wherein  the  only  vesting  of  Bungalow  No.1  and  Administrative  Block  has  been upheld.   It  had been left  open to the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration of  his  title  over  Bungalow  No.2.   No  suit  was  filed  by  the  petitioner.  There is no order giving a declaration of title in  favour of the petitioner.”

15) Taking note of all the above said applications/petitions,  

as mentioned in paragraphs  (supra),  it  is abundantly clear  

that the appellant herein have time and again filed various  

proceedings on the premise that Bungalow No.2 formed part  

of the Swadeshi House but failed in all the attempts.  It is not  

in  dispute  that  all  the  proceedings  went  against  the  

appellant herein.   

20

Page 21

16) All the above details, various orders and decisions by  

different courts negatived the claim of the appellant and the  

same issue is now again sought to be raised by the appellant  

in the present proceedings.  We are satisfied that in view of  

categorical  decision  of  this  Court  in  Doypack (supra),  

rejection of subsequent application filed by the appellant for  

clarification/modification,  direction  to  approach  the  Civil  

Court,  initiation  of  proceedings  under  the  PP  Act  which  

ended in dismissal, dismissal of complaint under Section 27  

of the Swadeshi Act, were passed by various courts which  

undoubtedly go against the claim and stand of the appellant.  

It  is  also  brought  to  our  notice  by  the  newly  impleaded  

parties that they had purchased the said property in a bona  

fide manner with clean title of the property vested in the  

SCMCL, therefore, they are entitled for the same.  It is made  

clear that we have not expressed any thing about the said  

issue.   

17) In view of the above, we are in entire agreement with  

the  orders  passed  by  the  trial  Court  as  well  as  the  High  

21

Page 22

Court,   consequently,  both  the  appeals  fail  and  are  

accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

...…………….…………………………J.              (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.       (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)         

NEW DELHI; JULY 01, 2013.  

22