Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Maharaja Electrobright Engg., rep. by its Proprietor George Verghese & Another
Versus
Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., rep. by its G.M. Development Thiru. V. Ramakrishnan
C.R.P. No. 3141 of 1996 & C.M.P. No. 17123 of 1996
Decided On :Decided on : 06-05-1997
EXECUTION OF DECREE - ATTACHMENT OF MOVABLES - STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT, 1951 - SEC. 31 AND 32 - DECREE SILENT ABOUT QUANTUM OF MONEY TO BE RECOVERED - EXECUTION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners, who had availed a loan from the respondent, State Financial Corporation, for setting up a small scale industrial unit, failed to repay the loan as per the sanctioned proceedings and schedule of repayment. The respondent Corporation filed an execution petition under Sec. 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, for attachment of the mortgaged movable properties and for an order of public auction sale of the same to realise the amount due. The execution petition was allowed by the District Judge, and the petitioners preferred a revision petition challenging the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground that the decree in the original suit was silent about the quantum of money to be recovered.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the decree in the original suit was defective and inexecutable as it did not specify the quantum of money that could be recovered by the decree holder. The Court observed that it is essential to state the amount to be realised by the Corporation and the subsequent interest in the decree, as otherwise, it will not be possible to execute the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the decree in the original suit was executable despite being silent about the quantum of money to be recovered? 2. Whether the execution petition filed by the respondent Corporation was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in AIR 1978 SC 1765, which held that the application under Sec. 31(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is not a money-claim and the substantive relief in such an application is akin to an application for attachment of property in execution of a decree. The Court also noted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regulate the disposal of such an application at different stages.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the District Judge allowing the execution petition. The Court directed the District Judge to amend the decree in the original suit by incorporating the quantum of amount and interest payable therein, and to proceed further with the execution in terms of the amended decree.
1. The present Revision has been preferred by the Revision Petitioners against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.11.1996, made in B.P. No. 13/96 in O.P. No. 75/93, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
2. In E.P. No. 13/96, the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry by order dated 22.11.1996 allowed the Execution Petition and ordered attachment of movables described in the schedule to the order and further directed the attachment warrant to be issued to the respondent returnable by 20.12.1996. The property which was ordered to be attached were only machineries and the order of attachment has been passed under Sec. 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. In the said Execution Petition, which was filed on the basis of decree granted in O.P. No. 75/1993, the present Revision Petitioners who are the judgment debtors raised an objection contending that in the absence of any amount of loan to be recovered being specified in O.P. No. 75/1993, the Execution Petition is illegal and cannot be proceeded.
3. It was also contended that the decree passed in O.P. No. 75/1993 is defective and inexecutable. According to the revision petitioners, the amount that could be recovered from the revision petitioners has not been specified in the decree passed in O.P. No. 75 of 1993.
4. The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, had overruled the objection on the view that when the Objector/Judgment Debtor-1, had failed to challenge the decree passed in O.P. No. 75/1993 and having allowed it to become final, has now raised the objection only with a view to frustrate the attempt of the decree holder to realise the amount due. It was also held that the judgment debtor has no real intention to pay the decree amount as he had offered to pay Rs. 2000/- only per month, which offer to pay in instalments cannot be acceptable at all. The District Judge overruled the objection and allowed the Execution Petition by fair and decreetal order dated 22.11.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the judgment debtors 1 & 2.
5. In this Revision also, Mr. G. Rajagopalan, appearing for the petitioners raised the solitary contention that the decree in O.P. No. 75/93 is inexecutable as the decree is silent about the quantum of money that could be realised by the decree holder in O.P. No. 75/93 and hence the Execution Petition cannot at all be proceeded.
6. On the other hand, Mr. T.P. Manoharan, appearing for the respondents contended that the revision petitioners, who are the judgment debtors in O.P. No. 75/1993 are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,71,319.25 ps. as on 1.1.1997 and only object of the petitioners is not to pay the amount availed by way of loan from the respondent, State Financial Corporation and every, attempt is made by the petitioners to defeat the decree and the action taken by the Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development and Industrial Corporation.
7. Mr. Manoharan also contended that action taken under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, being a special procedure, the decree and the execution are in order and no interference is called for. As according to the learned counsel, the proceeding is a special procedure, it cannot be said that the proceeding is in pari materia with the Civil Suit and decree, where the decree amount has to be specified. Further the learned counsel contended that this Court sitting in Revision under S. 115, will not interfere as there is no illegality or impropriety or material irregularity in the order passed by the Court below and it is a case where justice has been rendered and hence no interference is called for.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1988 TNLJ 1 1970 (1) MLJ 274 & AIR 1978 SC (2) 1765.
9. It is admitted by both sides, the present Revision Petitioners have availed loan from the respondent, State Financial Corporation, for setting up a small scale indust
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
