Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page 2452 The appellants contends, the respondent-Corporation is precluded from pursuing two remedies simultaneously, i.e. one under Section 29 of the Act and the other under Section 31(1) and 32 of the Act as the same would be in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in APSFC v. Gar Re-rolling Mills which was followed in 2001 (5) Kar.L.J. 429.

The respondent contends without abandoning or withdrawing the proceedings under Section 29 of the Act, the Corporation cannot proceed under Section 31(1) of the Act before the District Court, Mysore. Accordingly the appellant filed the above Writ Petition challenging the proceedings in the Misc. Petition as illegal and without jurisdiction.

Page 2455

13. Questioning the said order of the learned Single Judge an appeal came to be filed by the Financial Corporation. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Corporation was the learned Single Judge did not properly analyse the ratio of the judgment of the Apex court in GAR Re-rolling Mills case (supra). The said contentions are at paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Division Bench. At paragraph 5, their Lordships of the Division Bench reiterated the ratio of the Judgment in GAR Re-rolling Mills' case (supra) at paragraph 16 of the Judgment i.e. to say "While the corporation cannot simultaneously pursue the two remedies, it is under no disability to take recourse to the rights and remedy available to it under Section 29 of the Act even after an order under Section 31 has been obtained but without executing it....

21. In light of above discussion, we have to see how these two remedies would avail to the benefit of the Financial Corporation. On this aspect, we rely on paragraphs 13 to 21 of the judgment (Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills and Anr.) WITH (Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. Kota Subba Reddy and Ors.).

Paragraphs 13 to 21: On a conjoint reading of Section 29 and 31 of the Act, it appears to us that in case of default in repayment of loan or any instalment or any advance or breach of an agreement, the Corporation has two remedies available to it against the defaulting industrial concern, one under Section 29 and another under Section 31 of the Act. The choice for availing the remedy under Section 29 or Section 31 of the Act is that of the Financial Corporation alone and the defaulting concern has no say whatsoever in the matter, as to which remedy should be taken recourse to by the Corporation against it for effecting the recovery. The expression "without prejudice to the provisions of Section 29 of this Act" as appearing in Section 31 of the Act clearly demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend to confine the Corporation to take recourse to only a particular remedy against the defaulting industrial concern for recovery of the amount due to it. It left the choice to the Corporation to act in the first instance under Section 31 of the Act and save its rights and remedies under Section 29 of the Act to be availed at later stage, with the sole object of enabling the Corporation to recover its dues. It is not, however, obligatory on the part of the Financial Corporation to invoke the special provisions of Section 31 of the Act, it can even without taking recourse to the provisions of the said Section invoke the procedure prescribed under Section 29 of the Act for realisation of its dues. Where the Corporation takes recourse to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act and obtains an order from the Court, it shall ordinarily and invariably seek its enforcement in the manner provided by Section 32 of the Act, which provisions are aimed to act in aid of the orders obtained under Section 31 of the Act and it cannot simultaneously initiate and take recourse to the remedy available to it under Section 29 of the Act unless it gives up, abandons or withdraws the proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, at whatever stage those proceedings may be. Page 2463 The Corporation cannot simultaneously pursue two remedies at the same time. The reach and scope of the two remedies is essentially different even if somewhat similar result flows by taking recourse to either of the two provisions in certain respects.

15. The Doctrine of Election clearly suggests that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the party to whom the said remedies are available has the option to elect either of them but that doctrine would not apply to cases where the ambit and scope of the two remedies is essentially different. To hold otherwise may lead to injustice and inconsistent results. Since, the Corporation must be held entitled and given full protection by the Court to recover its dues it cannot be bound down to adopt only one of the two remedies provided under the Act. In our opinion, the Corporation can initially take recourse to Section 31 of the Act but withdraw or abandon it at any stage and take recourse to provisions of Section 29 of the Act, which Section deals with not only the rights but also provides a self contained remedy to the Corporation for recovery of its dues. If the Corporation chooses to take recourse to the remedy available under Section 31 of the Act und pursues the same to the logical conclusion and obtains an order or decree, it may thereafter execute the order or decree, in the manner provided by Section 32(7) and (8) of the Act. The explanation, however, may withdraw or (sic) Act. A 'decree' under Section 31 of the Act not being a money decree or a decree for realisation of the dues of the Corporation, as held in AIR 1978 SC 1765(1769) supra, recourse to it cannot debar the Corporation from taking recourse to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act by not pursuing the decree or order under Section 31 of the Act, in which Page 2465 event the order made under Section 31 of the Act would serve in aid of the relief available under Section 29 of the Act.