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

2001 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 8

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bhushan D. Dharmadhikari, J
Vasant Holiday Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Collector and District Recovery Officer Panaji and Others
Writ Petition No. 87/2000



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kakodkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned Additional Soliciting General

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.

Headnote:(A) Goa, Daman and Diu Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Constitutional validity - Petitioner challenged Section 3 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging arbitrary power conferred to the Managing Director in certifying loan repayments without proper adjudication opportunities. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Constitutional Law - Equality before law - The provision does not create discrimination, and the Act provides an effective recovery mechanism for public dues. It has been upheld in similar statutes by the Supreme Court, ensuring that procedural safeguards exist for debtors without infringing on their rights. (Paras 5-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner defaulted on a loan agreement with the respondent, leading to recovery actions under Section 3 of the Act. The Act allows the Collector to recover arrears as land revenue without civil court intervention, which the petitioner argued is arbitrary.

Findings of Court:
The court found the provisions of Section 3 to be valid and conferred sufficient authority to the Collector to proceed with recovery; the validity of similar provisions has been upheld in prior Supreme Court judgments.

Issues: The main issue was whether Section 3 of the Act provided an arbitrary power that violates the rights guaranteed under Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mechanisms established for recovery under Section 3 are not arbitrary; they follow a legislative intent to expedite recovery of dues and provide adequate forum through the Collector.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to act's constitutionality over loan recovery (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's claims of arbitrariness in recovery process (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments against the effectiveness of the collector's authority (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's upholding of act's provisions and dismissal of petition (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

1. Petitioner challenges the Constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1986, (hereinafter called "the Act"), particularly S.3 thereof. The S.3 of the said Act reads as follows : -
"3. Recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. -
(1) Where any person is a party: -
(a) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to him by the State Government, the Corporation or as the case may be; the Government Company by way of financial assistance; or
(b) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to him by a Bank or Government Company, as the case may be under Government sponsored scheme; or
(c) to any agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of a loan raised by an industrial concern; or
(d) to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government or the Corporation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 (Act 9 of 1969) and such person -
(i) makes any default in payment of the loan or advance of any instalment thereof; or
(ii) having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof, or
(iii) otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement -
then, in the case of the State Government such Officer as may be authorised in that behalf by the State Government by Notification in the Official Gazette, in the case of a Corporation or a Government Company, the Managing Director thereof or where there is no Managing Director, the Chairman thereof, by whatever name called, and in the case of a Bank, the local agent thereof by whatever name called, may send to the Collector a certificate as early as possible in the prescribed form mentioning the sum due from such person and requesting that such sum may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act 9 of 1969);
(2) The Collector on receiving the certificate shall after making such enquiries (including giving hearing to the party affected) as he deems fit proceed to recovery the amount stated therein as aforesaid as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 (Act 9 of 1969);
(3) On recovery of any amount under sub-section (2), the same shall be paid over to the State Government, Corporation, Government, Company or as the case may be, bank after deducting, except in the case of amount to be paid to the State Government, such portion of the amount realised, as cost of collection, as the Collector may deem to be reasonable.
(4) No suit for the recovery of any such due as aforesaid shall lie in a Civil Court against any person referred to in sub-section (1) and no injunction shall be granted by a Civil Court in respect of any action taken or intended to be taken in pursuance of the right conferred by this section."













2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, represented by its Managing Director Mr. Umesh V. Prabhu. Petitioner had taken certain loan from the 2nd respondent (we are not very much concerned about the actual amount of the loan taken by the petitioner in the nature of the contention raised in the Writ Petition). It appears that the petitioner committed default for repayment of such





















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