R.P.Singh, J. - (1.) This plaintiff's first appeal arises from order against the judgment and order dated August 22, 1987, passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, dismissing the applications for interim injunction and vacating the interim injunction passed on February 24, 1987.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed Suit No. 21 of 1987 in the court of the District Judge, Tehri, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from recovering Rs. 70,64,360.67 with the allegations, that with a view to establish a filament factory at Tapovan in the district of Tehri Garhwal, the plaintiff company was granted a loan by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 31 86 lakhs. The building, machines, tools and plants were mortgaged by the plaintiff as security for the loan. The plaintiff's case further was that since the subsidy that was promised by the State to the plaintiff was not released, the plaintiff could not procure the raw material and suffered huge loss. It was alleged that the defendant issued a recovery certificate to the Collector of Tehri for a sum of Rs. 70,64,360.67 with interest and it is proceeding to recover the same as arrears of land revenue which is illegal and void and consequently the plaintiff filed an application praying for an ad interim injunction staying the recovery proceedings till the subsidy was released to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case further is that after the coming into force of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act), 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the plaintiff company had been declared a sick industrial company on August 13, 1987, and hence in view of Section 22 of the Act, no proceedings for execution, distress or the like against the properties of the plaintiff company shall proceed further and hence also the recovery proceedings could not proceed against the plaintiff company.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and the application for the ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit for injunction and the injunction application are barred by the provisions of Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. The case of the defendant is that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recovery Act"), the recovery certificate sent to the Collector cannot be called in question in any suit and no injunction can be granted by any court or authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of the recovery proceedings under the Recovery Act, and hence there is a complete bar from granting an injunction in respect of any action taken in the present recovery proceedings. The case of the defendant further is that even after the plaintiff company had been declared to be a sick industrial company, all proceedings relating to the obligation and liability of the sick industrial unit pending before any court, Tribunal or authority shall remain stayed and hence no suit for injunction would lie in the civil court and the application for ad interim injunction also is not maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 16, 17 or 25 of the 1985 Act and hence also the defendant's case that the injunction application moved by the plaintiff is not maintainable.;