SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Del) 195

High Court Of Delhi
PARKASH PLAYING CARDS MANUFACTURING COMPANY,DELHI - Appellant
Versus
DELHI FINANCE CORPORATION - Respondent
Civil 370 of 1979
Decided On : 09/18/1979

Advocates Appeared:
R.K.Baweja, V.B.ANDLEY

An application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is not a "suit" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and therefore, the High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such applications.

Headnote:

DELHI HIGH COURT ACT, 1966 - SECTION 5 - JURISDICTION - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 - WHETHER TO BE FILED IN HIGH COURT OR DISTRICT COURT - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a company, had been advanced considerable amounts of money by the Delhi Financial Corporation (the Corporation). The Corporation made an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (the Act) before the District Judge, which was registered as a civil suit and assigned for disposal to the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge passed an order in favor of the Corporation, and the petitioner filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court, which was registered as a first appeal and disposed of on that basis. The petitioner then filed an application in the suit for execution of the "decree" passed in the suit, as modified by the High Court, which was treated as an execution matter in the suit. The petitioner raised an objection for the first time that the "decree" sought to be executed had not been passed by a competent court on the ground that only the High Court could have entertained and dealt with the application under Section 31 as the monetary claim of the Corporation was in excess of Rs. 50,000.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that an application under Section 31 of the Act is not a "suit" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and therefore, the High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such applications. The court further held that the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, which deal with the procedure to be followed by the District Judge in respect of applications under Section 31, do not expand the contest in the application to render it a suit between a mortgagee and the mortgagor for sale of mortgaged property.

Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is a "suit" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966? 2. Whether the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain applications under Section 31 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "suit" in Section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 in the context of the legislation conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and held that it should be given a narrow and restricted meaning. The court observed that the word "suit" in the context of Section 5 refers to ordinary civil suits in the normal connotation of the term, which are initiated by the filing of a plaint and contain various details and particulars prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 31 and Section 32 of the Act and held that an application under Section 31 is not a suit in the nature of a plaint, but rather a special procedure for enforcement of claims by the Corporation. The court noted that the application is limited to seeking specific reliefs, such as sale of mortgaged property, transfer of management of the industrial concern, or an interim injunction, and does not involve a personal decree against the mortgagors or implead all necessary parties.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge and holding that the application under Section 31 of the Act was properly filed in the District Court and that the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to dispose of the same.

S. RANGANATHAN

( 1 ) SECTION 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to simply as s. 5 ), confers original jurisdiction on the High Court of Delhi in the following terms: Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi:

(1) The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the territories for the time being included in the Union Territory of Delhi, all such original, appellate and other jurisdiction as, under the law in force immediately before the appointed day, is exercisable in respect of the said territories by the High Court of Punjab. (2) Notwithstanding anything. contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees. "this Civil Revision petition raises the interesting question as to whether, in view, of the above provision, after the coming into existence of the Delhi High Court, an application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act ), where the amount remaining due to the Financial Corporation concerned exceeds Rs. 50,000. 00, should be filed only in the High Court and not in the Court of the District Judge or Additional District Judge as before.

( 2 ) A brief factual background may also be necessary as some reference to the factual position was also made in the course of the arguments. The Parkash Playing Cards Manufacturing Company, ( the Petitioner ) had been advanced considerable amounts of money by the Delhi Financial Corporation ( the Corporation ). A sum of Rs. 67,196. 92 and further interest is claimed by the Corporation as payable by the petitioner. The Corporation therefore, made an application under Section 31 of the Act before the District Judge which was registered as Civil Suit No. 79 of 1976 and assigned for disposal to the Additional District Judge. On 12-10-1976 the Additional District Judge passed an order in favour of the Corporation for the amount claimed and directed that the same should be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 2,000. 00 each commencing from 31-12-1976. The Court also drew up a decree in terms of the order. Dissatisfied with the order, the Corporation preferred an appeal to the Delhi High Court which was registered as F. A. O. No. 15/77. There was a compromise in the High Court, the order of the lower court was confirmed but the terms of payment were altered in respects which are not now material. The petitioner not having paid its dues, the Corporation filed an application in Suit No. 79/76 for execution of the "decree" passed in the suit, as modified by the High Court, which has been treated as an execution matter in the suit. It is at this stage that the petitioner put forward an objection for the first time that the "decree" sought to be executed had not been passed by a competent court on the ground that only the High Court could have entertained and dealt with the application under Section 31 as the monetary claim of the Corporation was in excess of Rs. 50,000. This contention has been rejected by the Additional District Judge and hence the present revision.

( 3 ) IN order to succeed in his contention, the petitioner must first show that the proceedings initiated by an application under Section 31 of the Act constitute a "suit" the value of which exceeds Rs. 50,000, within the meaning of Section 5. For a proper understanding of the nature and scope of the proceedings outlined in Sections 31 and 32, it is first better to have broad perspective of the object and purposes of the Act itself. The Act was enacted by Parliament with a view to enabling State Governments to establish Finance Corporations tor enhancing the pace of industrialisation by providing credit on easy terms tor setttng up industrial concerns and/or for expanding the activities of the existing industrial concerns. As a considerable part of the funds of the Corporation are




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top