ORDER

None appears for the respondents.

2 . Appellant’s contention is that appellant is aggrieved of order dated 7.5.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Bhopal rejecting an application for guarantee furnished by respondents at Bhopal on the ground that section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Act of 1951'’) is a special Act and it provides for enforcement of claim by the Financial Corporation. It is held that claim in suit under section 31(aa) is not separable from the provisions contained in section 31 which specially create jurisdiction on the respective District Judge within whom jurisdiction the industry is situated.

3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel, reading provisions of section 46-B of the State Financial Corporation Act points out that provisions of the Act of 1951 are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern. He submits that therefore general law will be applicable and since guarantee was given at Bhopal, jurisdiction of Court at Bhopal can be invoked. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., v. M/s R.M.P. Cements Ltd. And others [2008(1) KLO 901 (DB)] wherein it is held that provisions of section 46-B of the Act of 1951 makes it clear that the provisions are not in derogation of any other law but in addition to any other law. The contract of guarantee was entered at Bangalore, therefore, a part of cause of action arises at Bangalore. Hence, it is within the valid realm of contract between the parties to choose the Court at Bangalore to have the exclusive jurisdiction. Such a contract cannot be assailed as illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 31 of the Act.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record, the basic question which emerges for interpretation of this Court is that as to whether the provisions contained in section 31 of the Act of 1951 are to be read harmoniously or in isolation as suggested by Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal that since clause (aa) was included subsequently [vide Act 43 of 1985 (w.e.f. 21.8.1985)], it is to be read in isolation, with the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code, dealing with aspect of territorial jurisdiction.

5. A perusal of section 31 of the Act of 1951 reveals that it provides for special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation, which reads as under :--

‘’31. Special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation.--

(1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, then, without prejudice to the provisions of section 29 of this Act and of section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the district judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely:--

(a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation as security for the loan or advance; or

(aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or

(b) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or

(c) for an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removin