Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1085 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3420 OF 2012 and CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2409 OF 2009
Decided on : 16-09-2015
(2002) 3 SCC 533; (2003) 5 SCC 163; (1999) 6 SCC 74 – Relied upon
(b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3 and 130 – Assets and liabilities of Department of Telecommunication transferred to BSNL u/s 130 – Some of the debts already time barred at the time of transfer – Such debts do not constitute actionable claims – In any event benefit of Article 112 of Limitation Act not available to BSNL being a separate legal entity than the Central Government. (Para 10)
(c) TRAI Act – Section 18 r/w section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Statutory appeal against judgment/order of Tribunal – Maintainable only on substantial question of law – No question of law arising in the appeal – Appeal not maintainable. (Para 14, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
BSNL was incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Its 100 % shares are held in the name of the President. It is fully controlled by the Central Government.
Article 112 of the Limitation Act provides a limitation of 30 years for recovery of actionable claims due to Central Government.
On transfer of assets and liabilities of DoT to BSNL many dues of subscribers were also transferred. Treating these as actionable claims and treating itself as Central Government BSNL attempted to invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act.
Both these contentions as to being Central Government and the debts being actionable claims have been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
Neither the BSNL is Central Government nor the debts, many of which were time barred even at the time of transfer from DoT, are actionable claims.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
A suit for money recovery by the railway would generally not invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act. This is because Article 112 specifically provides a limitation period of 30 years for suits filed directly by the Central Government or State Governments.
Since the railway is an autonomous statutory body established under specific legislation, it is considered a separate legal entity from the Central Government itself. Although it is owned and controlled by the government, it does not fall within the category of suits directly initiated by the Central Government. Therefore, the benefit of the extended limitation period under Article 112 does not automatically apply to suits filed by the railway for recovery of money.
Instead, the limitation period for such claims would typically be governed by the general provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to suits for recovery of money, which is usually three years from the date the cause of action arises, unless a specific provision states otherwise (!) (!) .
In summary, a money recovery suit filed by the railway would not normally invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act, as it is a separate legal entity and not a suit directly filed by the Central Government.
Judgment :
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1085/2008 and 2409/2009:
2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common and facts are identical, we dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.
3. Heard Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals and Ms. Tatini Basu, learned counsel for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2409/2009. Despite service of notice on the sole-respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1085/2008, he remained unrepresented.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from the leading case i.e. Civil Appeal No. 1085/2008. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing Regular Second Appeal No. 835/2007 by affirming the judgment and decree dated 2.09.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani in dismissing the original suit filed by the appellant herein against the respondent on the ground that the suit claim is barred by limitation. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal(s), urging various grounds.
5. Mr. R.D. Agrawala, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia contends that the appellant being a Central Government Undertaking, a Company, which is an instrumentality of the State, has got vested rights on the execution of the instrument, Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2000 wherein the Department of Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as the “DoT”), of the Central Government represented by its Secretary has executed the said Office Memorandum by transferring the assets and liabilities in respect of the business currently being carried out on account of the Government to the appellant-company on the book value thereof. The book value of the assets comprising of the business transferred in favour of the appellant-company has been provisionally assessed at Rs. 63,000/- Crores. Therefore, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that it is an actionable claim as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the “TP Act”) which means a claim to any debt which is an asset under Section 130 of the TP Act. The said actionable claim, according to the learned senior counsel, has been transferred in favour of the appellant-company by the execution of instrument i.e. Office Memorandum, referred to supra, therefore, all the rights and remedies of the transferor-DoT vests with the transferee-company. Hence, the appellant-company is entitled to recover or enforce such debts or actionable claim against the respondent-subscriber.
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance upon the book, titled “Accounting Standards and Corporate Accounting Practices” by Dr. T.P. Ghosh in support of the contention that the current assets include assets (such as inventories and trade receivables). He placed strong reliance upon the meaning of the word 'vested' from the Webster's Dictionary in support of his contention and submits that by virtue of the execution of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the transfer of all the rights and remedies in relation to the actionable claim, which is a debt legally recoverable from the subscribers, are vested with the appellant-company, and therefore, the benefit of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 of instituting a suit within thirty years from the date of the cause of action is available for the appellant-company or in the alternative three years from the date of incorporation of the company. He also placed strong reliance upon Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which defines 'Central Government' as under:-
“3(8). 'Central Government' shall,-
(a) in relation to anything done before the commencement of the Constitution, mean the Governor General or the Governor General in Council, as the case may be; and shall include,-
(i) in relation to functions entrusted under sub-section (1) of Section 124 of the Government of India Act, 1935, t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
