2011 (6) TMI 1012 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the legality of proceedings u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, the liability of the Petitioner to discharge dues of M/s. Inter Food (P) Limited, and the maintainability of the Writ Petition in light of alternative remedies.

Proceedings u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951:
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No. 52. Q/1037-09, dated 08.02.2008 of Respondent No. 3, alleging that the proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The Petitioner, who is the owner of land purchased from A.P. State Finance Corporation, argued that the dues of M/s. Inter Food Private Limited, from whom the property was purchased, cannot be recovered from the Petitioner. The sale of the property was conducted to recover the dues owed by M/s. Inter Food Private Limited to Respondent No. 1 under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.

Liability of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that M/s. Inter Food Private Limited owed Respondent No. 1 an amount of &8377; 17,83,777/-, which was not the responsibility of the Petitioner to pay. Despite assurances from Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner was not liable for the amount, Respondent No. 3 issued an attachment order on the Petitioner's property for the recovery of the said amount. The Petitioner challenged this order through the Writ Petition.

Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The Respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, citing the availability of alternative remedies under Section 75 of the 1948 Act. The Court acknowledged the objection but noted that the Writ Petition had been pending for three years and that the issue had been adjudicated by three High Courts. The Court opined that the doctrine of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a Writ Petition, especially when the dispute is no longer res integra. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed as prayed for.

This judgment highlights the legal battle surrounding the recovery of dues from a property purchased by the Petitioner, the interpretation of statutory provisions u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and the Court's discretion in allowing a Writ Petition despite the availability of alternative remedies.