DEEPAK BHANDARI Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 29,2014
Deepak Bhandari
Appellant
VERSUS
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
QUINN V. LEATHERN [REFERRED TO]LONDON GRAVING DOCK CO. LTD.V. HORTON [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DHANWANTI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPN VS. ASHOK K AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. RAJ KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF KARNATAKA VS. GOWRAMMA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
PARAMOUNT PLASTICINDUSTRIES VS. CORPORATION BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-195] [REFERRED TO]SALEEMA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2021-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
TARA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KSIIDC [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-109] [REFERRED TO]
MUNIVENKATA SWAMY VS. CHAM LUKKING PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SHRI UTTAM SOLVENT EXTRACTION P LTD. AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO), JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-166] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. MESSERS LUXMI FURNITURES AND SAW MILLS [LAWS(HPH)-2023-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. BHARGABI COLD STORAGE [LAWS(ORI)-2019-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY MUTTON DEALER ASSOCIATION AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-370] [REFERRED TO]
COZY POLYSTONE (PRIVATE) LIMITED, BANGALORE AND OTHERS VS. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, BANGALORE AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
K.V.G. RAJAN VS. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED VS. NOORJAHAN BEEVI [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD. VS. CASINO REXINES [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SALT REFINERIES LTD. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-246] [REFERRED TO]
MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-209] [REFERRED]
M/S RAJESH STEEL INDUSTRIES VS. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KONKAN LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-352] [REFERRED TO]
KANACHUR ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST (R) VS. THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. CHANANA STEEL TUBES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
M/S.SUN TV NETWORK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-6-114] [REFERRED TO]
HARI NARAYAN SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA KUMAR TIBAREWALLA VS. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, BENGALURU [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
SRI KRISHNA CHAITANYA ICE FACTORY VS. ANDHRA PRADSH STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-110] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. PAVITHRA INDUSTRIES [LAWS(KAR)-2024-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
THE HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. HIMACHAL FILAMENT (P) LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-100] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. MADHU PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
A.K.SIKRI, J. -
(1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)PRESENT appeal raises an interesting question of law pertaining to the starting point of limitation for filing the suit for recovery by the State Financial Corporations constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act. We make it clear at the outset itself that we are not treading a virgin path. There are two judgments of this Court touching upon this very issue. At the same time it is also necessary to point out that it has become imperative to clarify the legal position contained in two judgments and to reconcile the ratio thereof as well because of the reason that they are contradictory in nature. It necessitates wider discussion in order to avoid any confusion in the manner such cases are to be dealt with.
With the aforesaid preliminary introduction to the subject matter of the present appeal, we now proceed to take note of the facts which have led to the question of limitation that confronts us.
(3.)RESPONDENT No. 1 viz. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Corporation') is a financial corporation under the State Development Corporation Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). It is a statutory body constituted for the purpose of carrying out the objectives of the Act. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of providing financial aid to companies for setting up and commencing operations. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Company') is the industrial concern which defaulted in repayment of the loan disbursed by the Respondent No. 1. It is now under liquidation. Respondent No. 3 is the official liquidator, who was appointed by the High Court of Delhi for the purposes of winding up the Company. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were the Directors of the Company at the time of entering into the loan agreements with the Corporation.
(2.)PRESENT appeal raises an interesting question of law pertaining to the starting point of limitation for filing the suit for recovery by the State Financial Corporations constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act. We make it clear at the outset itself that we are not treading a virgin path. There are two judgments of this Court touching upon this very issue. At the same time it is also necessary to point out that it has become imperative to clarify the legal position contained in two judgments and to reconcile the ratio thereof as well because of the reason that they are contradictory in nature. It necessitates wider discussion in order to avoid any confusion in the manner such cases are to be dealt with.
With the aforesaid preliminary introduction to the subject matter of the present appeal, we now proceed to take note of the facts which have led to the question of limitation that confronts us.
(3.)RESPONDENT No. 1 viz. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Corporation') is a financial corporation under the State Development Corporation Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). It is a statutory body constituted for the purpose of carrying out the objectives of the Act. It is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of providing financial aid to companies for setting up and commencing operations. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Company') is the industrial concern which defaulted in repayment of the loan disbursed by the Respondent No. 1. It is now under liquidation. Respondent No. 3 is the official liquidator, who was appointed by the High Court of Delhi for the purposes of winding up the Company. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were the Directors of the Company at the time of entering into the loan agreements with the Corporation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.