9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loan due to the Jhalawar State Bank could be recovered as a public demand. 2. Whether the dues of the Jhalawar State Bank were transferred to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. 3. Whether the moneys claimed from the appellants were payable under a written instrument or agreement. 4. Whether the certificate under the Act was defective. 5. Whether the Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution by enabling moneys due to the Government in respect of its trading activities to be recovered by way of public demand. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Recovery of Loan as Public Demand The appellants were served a notice under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952, for the recovery of Rs. 2,24,607/6/6 due to loans taken from the Jhalawar State Bank. The appellants contended that the amount was not a public demand. The court examined whether money due to the Jhalawar State Bank was money payable to the Government of Rajasthan. The Jhalawar State Bank, started in 1932, was deemed a state undertaking with assets derived solely from the funds of the Jhalawar State. Upon the integration of Jhalawar into the United State of Rajasthan, these assets vested in the State of Rajasthan. The court concluded that the Jhalawar State Bank's dues were indeed public demands as they were assets of the State of Rajasthan. Issue 2: Transfer of Dues to Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. The appellants argued that the dues of the Jhalawar State Bank were transferred to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. via certain notifications. The first notification dated February 15, 1951, indicated that the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. was authorized "on behalf of the State" to recover amounts due to the Jhalawar State Bank. The second notification dated April 16, 1952, reiterated the merger of the Jhalawar State Bank into the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. The court found that these notifications did not transfer the debts to the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. as its own property but rather authorized it to recover the debts on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan. Therefore, the debts remained dues of the Government of Rajasthan. Issue 3: Moneys Payable Under Written Instrument or Agreement The appellants contended that the moneys claimed were not payable under a written instrument or agreement. The court noted that the loans were granted based on written applications and receipts signed by the appellants and the bank officers. These documents constituted written agreements, satisfying the requirement of the Act. The court dismissed the argument that the Act required a single instrument, stating that a singular includes the plural in statutory interpretation. Issue 4: Defect in the Certificate Under the Act The appellants argued that the certificate under the Act was defective as it did not specify the period for which the demand was due. The court clarified that in the case of loans, there is no question of a period for which the demand is due. The requirement to specify the period applies to claims for revenue or rent, not loans. Therefore, the certificate was not defective. Issue 5: Constitutionality Under Article 14 The appellants contended that the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution by giving the Government special facilities for recovering moneys due from its trading activities. The court held that the Government, even as a banker, could be legitimately put in a separate class. The dues of the Government are the dues of the entire people of the State, and a law providing special recovery facilities for such dues does not offend Article 14. Conclusion: The court concluded that the amount claimed from the appellants was a public demand within the meaning of the Act and was legally recoverable through the impugned proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
