MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. ASHOK K. AGARWAL AND ORS

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 617

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARUN KUMAR, R.V. RAVEENDRAN

Case summary

MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. ASHOK K. AGARWAL AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Y. ASHOK K. AGARWAL AND ORS. • MARCH 30, 2006 [ARUN KUMAR AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ. ] Limitation Act, 1963-Article 136 or 137-Applicability of. to application under Sections 31 and 32 of State Financial Corporations Act. 1951-Held: Article 137 is applicable and not Article 136-Article 136 is applicable to execution of decree or order of civil court-There being no execution ofdecree or order ofa civil court while dealing with an application under Sections 31 and 32, Courts below rightly held Article 136 inapplicable-State Financial Corporations Act, 1951-ss. 31 and 32-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 2(2). Appellant-Corporation had sanctioned loan to a Company. Respondents are Directors ofthis Company who stood S!! reties for the loan amount The company failed to repay the loan amount.

In 1983, appellant filed an application under Sections 31and32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 against the borrower Company praying for sale of hypothecated properties. The properties were put to sale. But there was shortfall in amount realised from such sale and so on 2. 1. 1992, appellant filed application under Section 3l(l)(aa) against respond of the Act. Even after this amendment the appellant did not wake up to take any step against the sureties in the present case. Notice was issued to the sureties only on 7th December, 1991 and the application for enforcement of liability against them was filed on 2nd January, 1992. The application, therefore, was clearly barred by time and the decisions of the courts below cannot be faulted. The courts below rightly dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Before parting with the judgment we would like to place on record that since the respondents were not represented in the case, we requested Sh. Ashok Grover, Senior Advocate, to assist the court as amicus curiae. We record our appreciation of the services rendered by Shri Grover in this behalf. D. G. Appeal dismissed. - • . '