MURLI SINGH Vs. STATE BANK DHOLPUR
LAWS(RAJ)-1969-9-17
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on
September 25,1969
MURLI SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
State Bank Dholpur
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JATINDRA NATH V. PROVINCE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]HARLA V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
NAV RATTANMAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN DASS ON BEHALF OF FIRM TILAK RAM RAM BUX NAND RAM TULSI RAM TILAK RAM RAM BUX VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MUKAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
V S RICE AND OIL MILLS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BANK LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION VS. SARKAR DUTT ROY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
C.B. Bhargava, J. -
(1.)THIS revision application by the defendants is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 1968, of the learned District Judge, Bharatpur whereby issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were decided against the petitioners.
(2.)THE Sub -Divisional Officer, Dholpur having been appointed as an officer to take over the management of the State Bank of Dholpur (hereinafter called the Bank) to wind up its affairs and distribute its assets, by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 5(1) (a) of Act No. 56 of 1962 (hereinafter called Act of 1962) instituted a suit against the petitioners in the court of the District Judge, Bharatpur for recovery of the amount of loan alleged to have been advanced by the Bank to them on 12 -12 -1947. The suit was instituted on 16th February, 1966 and was stated to be within limitation as having been instituted within five years from the date of the first appointment of the officer, i.e., the Manager, vide Clause (d) of Section 5 of the Act. It may be stated that the first appointment of the officer under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act was made by the Central Government vide its Order No. F -8/ 85/62 -BB dated 1 -3 -1963 with effect from 1 -4 -65. Clause (1) (d) of Section 5 of the Act is as follows: - -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in any order or other instrument - -
"The period of limitation for any suit or application relating to any payment due to the Dholpur Bank which has accrued before or may accrue on or after the date of the first appointment of the officer in charge of winding up of the bank shall be twelve years from the date of the accrual of the claim or five years from the date of such first appointment of the officer aforesaid, whichever may end later."
(3.)THE petitioners contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit was time barred, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring the suit and Act No. 56 of 1962 was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. On these objections the following three issues amongst others were framed by the learned District Judge: - -
4. Whether the suit is time barred?
(2.)THE Sub -Divisional Officer, Dholpur having been appointed as an officer to take over the management of the State Bank of Dholpur (hereinafter called the Bank) to wind up its affairs and distribute its assets, by the Central Government in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 5(1) (a) of Act No. 56 of 1962 (hereinafter called Act of 1962) instituted a suit against the petitioners in the court of the District Judge, Bharatpur for recovery of the amount of loan alleged to have been advanced by the Bank to them on 12 -12 -1947. The suit was instituted on 16th February, 1966 and was stated to be within limitation as having been instituted within five years from the date of the first appointment of the officer, i.e., the Manager, vide Clause (d) of Section 5 of the Act. It may be stated that the first appointment of the officer under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act was made by the Central Government vide its Order No. F -8/ 85/62 -BB dated 1 -3 -1963 with effect from 1 -4 -65. Clause (1) (d) of Section 5 of the Act is as follows: - -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in any order or other instrument - -
"The period of limitation for any suit or application relating to any payment due to the Dholpur Bank which has accrued before or may accrue on or after the date of the first appointment of the officer in charge of winding up of the bank shall be twelve years from the date of the accrual of the claim or five years from the date of such first appointment of the officer aforesaid, whichever may end later."
(3.)THE petitioners contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the suit was time barred, the plaintiff was not entitled to bring the suit and Act No. 56 of 1962 was ultra vires of the Constitution of India. On these objections the following three issues amongst others were framed by the learned District Judge: - -
4. Whether the suit is time barred?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.