Rangappa (K.) Vs. State of Mysore and anr.

- companies act, 1956 [c.a. no. 1/1956]. sections 529 & 529a & state financial corporation act 1951, section 29: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] proceedings under taking over of assets of the industrial concern in realisation of dues sale of assets - applicability of provisions of section 529 and 529a held, the corporation cannot exercise its rights if the assets of the industrial concern, has already vested in the company court or if the official liquidator had been put in charge of the assets of the industrial concern. if the winding up proceedings are not set in motion, then, there is no legal impediment to the corporation to take action under section 29 of the s.f.c. act, 1951 and permission of company court is not required to be obtained. in the absence of commencement of winding up proceedings, the provision of section 529 and 529a of the companies act cannot be made applicable. the action of the corporation under section 29 of the s.f.c. act is lawful. further, the corporation took over only the assets and not the management. the money realised by effecting sale under sub-section (2) of section 29, cannot be apportioned or ordered to be paid to the workmen of the industrial concern, when the industrial concern is not under the winding up proceedings, in terms of the provisions under the companies act. the corporation cannot be held liable either jointly or severally to pay the closure compensation or other claims of the workmen. the industry is liable to pay the wages of the lockout period and the closure compensation to the workmen. -- state financial corporations act, 1951 [63/1951]. section 29; power of the corporation under taking over the assets of the industrial concern to realise the dues -justification of the action of the corporation held, the corporation is empowered to effect recovery of its dues, by resorting to the measures, both under section 29 and 31 of the act. since the industry which was under a liability to the.....somnath ayyar, j.1. when the petitioner was superseded and his juniors were promoted to the next higher grade of excise inspector, the petitioner appealed to government and the appeal succeeded. by an order made by government on 31 july, 1961, two persons who were juniors to the petitioners but who had been promoted earlier were placed below the petitioner and the petitioner was assigned higher position. his promotion to the next higher grade of excise inspector was made retrospective and it took effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. 2. thereafter, the petitioner was urging for the re-fixation of his pay in the higher post on the basis of the retrospective promotion, and, notwithstanding a large number of reminders sent by him to government he received no reply. this writ petition is the sequel to the correspondence which went on between the petitioner and government in that way. although the prayer in this writ petition is somewhat cumbersome, it is clear that the prayer in effect is that there should be a direction for the payment to the petitioner of the pay with respect to the antecedent period during which he was superseded. 3. during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner died and his leg representatives have been brought on the record. 4. normally, if a person is unjustly superseded and the supersession is redressed in an appeal, all the ancillary benefits which flow from such redressal must be made available to the person who had been so superseded. but sri chandrasekhar for the government contended that according to the government notification of 12 february, 1960, a person who gets his promotion with retrospective effect on the ground that he had been unjustly superseded cannot have any claim for back-pay and allowances. but this government notification cannot deprive the petitioner of a claim to which he is otherwise entitled. 5. it is the practice of this court in all cases where a person's promotion is directed.....