Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1846 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of auction notice - failure to repay the two loans availed for purchase of a truck and establishing an industry for manufacture of steel trunks - Section 85 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973 - HELD THAT:- No explanation was furnished why the installments were not repaid and the loan closed. A pittance was repaid. The loan was disbursed from public funds of the tax payers' money. The Respondent was a trustee for the loan amount. It could not become a windfall for him. All attempts by the Appellant for recovery were successfully thwarted by the Respondent by either filing a Suit or successive writ petitions. The sanguine confidence of the Respondent is also reflected by his failure to appear in the present proceedings despite valid service of notice. The bar under Order 23 Rule 1 would apply only to a fresh Suit and not proceedings under the Act. In Sarva Shramik Sanghatana v. State of Maharashtra [2007 (11) TMI 590 - SUPREME COURT], the application Under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for closure of undertaking was withdrawn as attempts were made for settlement of the matter. Settlement not having been possible, the Management filed a fresh application. It was opposed as barred under Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the earlier application was withdrawn unconditionally with no liberty granted. The High Court factually erred in holding that the trunk loan was time barred because the Appellant took no steps for recovery of the dues from 1996 till 2002 overlooking the Certificate dated 3.9.1994 - it is held that the proceedings in a Suit are essentially different from proceedings under the Act. The withdrawal of the Suit was no bar to proceedings under the Act. There was no bar under the Act to the proceedings. There had been no abandonment of claim by the Appellant. It would be contrary to public policy to prevent the Appellant from recovering the loan. The recovery proceedings were not time barred. The order of the High Court is held to be unsustainable and is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|