There were several proceedings in the High Court of Delhi and in other High Courts.
4, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited as they have an interest in the business, affairs and properties of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited and Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Company Limited.
It was companytended that the effect of the aforesaid decision was to take away valuable assets of respondent No.
4, namely, Swadeshi Cotton Mills Limited without paying any companypensation whatsoever therefore and further it imposed upon respondent No.
4 liabilities without any companyresponding assets available to discharge the liabilities.
It was the companytention in this writ petition that the said acquisition virtually amounted to companyfiscation of the shares of respondent No.
5 and respondent No.
305 of 1988.
4 and substantially damaged the rights of the shareholders of respondent No.
6 and certain other excluded assets.
In the premises, it was submitted that they have the locus to challenge the vires and companystitutional validity of sections 3 and 4 of the said Act in so far as these seek to divest respondent No.
6 held by respondent No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. By the order passed by us on 29th March, 1988, we had dismissed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
5 and respondent No.
4 of the shares in respondent No.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Harish, N. Salve, Vasant Mehta, Atul Tewari and Miss Bina Gupta for the Petitioners.
Satish Chandra, Anil B. Divan, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.V. Kapur, Anil Kumar Sharma, P.P. Malhotra, Naresh Sharma, Solicitor General T.V.S.N. Chari, Badri Nath, Ms. V. Grover, Attorney General , A. Subba Rao, Miss A. Subhashini, K.J. John, S. Swarup and Miss Naina Kapur for the Respondents.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
