VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Rana Gurjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab Energy Development Agency – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. recovery under the act of 1983 challenged. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents’ claim of recovery and context. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioners argue against the applicability of the act. (Para 6) |
| 4. legal arguments concerning recovery and jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court’s considerations on the statute and its application. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. dispute regarding the nature of the investment. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. court analyzes roles of peda and contractual obligations. (Para 23 , 26 , 31) |
| 8. issues of limitation and recovery process examined. (Para 40 , 44) |
| 9. conclusion: petition dismissed. (Para 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Recovery Certificate dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure P-6) and the Notification dated 21.09.2015 (Annexure P-3) whereby the respondents have initiated the process for recovery of outstanding dues under the Punjab Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1983') by appointing an Authorized Officer for recovery of dues.
Facts And Pleadings of Petitioner
2. The petitioners are the promoters of M/s Rana Sugars Limited and had entered into a Tripartite Financial Collaboration A
B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) v. E.S. Solar Power Private Limited
Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna v. M/s Green Rubber Industries
Central Bank of India, Ltd., Amritsar v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax v. E Srinivasan
Director of Industries, U.P. v. Deep Chand Aggarwal
Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through LRs
General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain
Iqbal Naseer Usmani v. Central Bank of India
Nagubhai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao
Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement
Nithinbhai Saevatilal Shah v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal
S. K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh
Swaraj Engines Limited v. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation
S.3(1)(c) of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965 is unconstitutional for violating Article 14 by allowing arbitrary recovery procedures without guiding standards.
Debt is not the same thing as right of action for its recovery – While debt is right in creditor with correlative duty on debtor right of action for recovery is in nature of a legal power.
Section 3 of the Goa Public Monies Act provides a constitutional mechanism for the recovery of public dues without infringing Article 14 through arbitrary actions.
The Zila Panchayat cannot recover contractual amounts as arrears of land revenue; such recovery must follow statutory provisions under the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.