Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarda Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd. vs Haryana Financial Corporation And Ors. on 1 August, 2006
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
ORDER Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below, arising out of a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction, wherein it was held that the suit is not maintainable on a finding recorded on a preliminary issue.
2. The plaintiff-appellant was sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- by the Financial Corporation, but an amount of Rs. 70,87,340/- was disbursed. The balance amount could not be disbursed as the machine which was to be imported by the appellant, could not be received before the cut off date. The amount was payable within a period of 5 years in quarterly instalments, beginning from May, 2001. Since, as per the Financial Corporation, the appellant was not able to make the payment of instalments, a notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was issued and the Corporation took over the possession in October, 2004. The said action of the Corporation was challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that under Order 14, Rule 2 CPC, only those preliminary issues could be framed which can be said to be issues on the question of law. It is alleged that there is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, therefore, there is no bar to challenge the action under Section 29 of the Act, 1951 and therefore, the finding on the preliminary issue is mis-conceived. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered in 1985 PLJ-175, Mahabir Parshad v. The Punjab Saltpetre Refinery Pvt. Ltd., and 1994 (3) PLR-151, Bhag Singh and others v. Nek Singh and others. It is further argued that loan advanced was of Rs. 70,87,340/-, but installments claimed from the appellant were as if the loan released is of Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. It was for that reason, a notice was issued under Section 29 of the Act treating the appellant as a defaulter. Still further, it is argued that the appellant has moved for one time settlement. The said one time settlement has not been accepted on erroneous ground.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. During the course of the arguments, it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that out of Rs. 70,87,340/-, a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- have been paid so far. It is thus obvious that the appellant is defaulter even in terms of the loan advanced. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the action initiated by the Corporation under Section 29 of the Act, even though the appellant was a defaulter. The argument that one time settlement scheme has been rejected on erroneous or illegal ground, is not tenable as much as the one time settlement is the concession and such concession is not legally enforceable, moreso, in a suit for declaration.
5. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Civil Court that the suit is not maintainable, cannot be said to be bad in law. I do not find any legal or equitable ground which may warrant any interference in the orders passed by the Courts below, for consideration in the second appeal. Dismissed.