- (1.) FIVE of the six guarantors sued by the petitioner State Financial corporation have applied tfor recalling orders passed in the proceedings. The ostensible ground in the application is the lack of authority of this Court to receive the petition under Section 31 (l) (aa) of the State financial Corporation Act, 1951. The ground urged at the final hearing of the application is for dismissal of the petition on the count of limitation. The point of limitation is canvassed on the strength of a line found in the application that the proceedings are not maintainable. The State Financial Corporation has been afforded time to answer the point of limitation and the matter has been heard with the State Financial Corporation resisting the ground of limitation without insisting on the technical objection that such matter would not fall within the ambit of this application.
(2.) THE principal ground originally put forth has been abandoned by the applicants. The applicants do not any longer insist that a High Court has no jurisdiction to receive a petition of such nature. The applicants were, of course, dissuaded from pursuing the primary basis of the application upon the State Financial Corporation citing the supreme Court judgment reported at 1991 (1) Comp LJ 315 : (1991 AIR SCW 612 ).
(3.) UPON the application being robbed of its main plank, the applicants changed tack to assert that this Court could not have entertained the petition for the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner Corporation. The Corporation was taken by surprise by the change of course midstream by the applicants and obtained an adjournment to address the issue of limitation.;