K. P. Khemka vs Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 438

SURYA KANT, K. V. VISWANATHAN
K. P. Khemka – Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Praveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Varun Pandit, Adv. Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Shakya, Adv. Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Mr. D. S. Mahra, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The document indicates that the proceedings under the Recovery of Dues Act and similar statutes are not conducted by civil courts. Specifically, it states that the machinery for recovery under these Acts does not have the trappings of a court and that the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot proprio vigore apply to these recovery mechanisms (!) (!) . Furthermore, it emphasizes that the right of recovery conferred by the statutes is a distinct power, separate from the civil remedy of filing a suit, and that civil courts are generally not vested with jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon cases related to recovery under these Acts (!) .

In addition, the law confers a special mode of recovery that is independent of civil court proceedings, and civil courts are explicitly barred from exercising jurisdiction over such recovery cases (!) (!) . The proceedings for recovery are meant to be swift and are designed to operate outside the traditional civil suit framework, indicating that civil courts are effectively barred from exercising jurisdiction in these recovery matters.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 24.04.2015 in CWP No. 15983 of 2013 and CWP No. 26452 of 2014. By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and rejected the contention of the appellants herein that if a debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, the same cannot be recovered by resorting to the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (for short “the Recovery of Dues Act”) read with the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. In so holding, the Division Bench applied the well established principle that the Limitation Act, which applies to Courts, merely bars the remedy and does not extinguish the debt.

3. The appellants herein had relied upon the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and Others vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 657 to contend that a time-barred debt under the Limitation Act cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act. While dealing with this contention, the High Court relied upon the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Lim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 438

SURYA KANT, K. V. VISWANATHANK. P. Khemka – AppellantVersusHaryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited – Respondent

Cases Referred (9)

SURYA KANT, K. V. VISWANATHAN
K. P. Khemka – Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited – Respondent