AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan, J.—This appeal is by the KSFC challenging the dismissal of the petition filed by it u/s 31(1)(a)(aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951. The petition was filed seeking an order to enforce liability on the respondents to an extent of Rs. 11,28,338/- due as on 10.12.2004 together with interest as prayed for in the petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, this appeal is preferred by the KSFC.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
Learned Counsel Sri. S.G. Pandit for the appellant submits that the trial court was in error in dismissing the petition and the three grounds upon which this appeal is filed are that the finding on limitation is erroneous, so also the finding on issues 2 and 3 raised by the trial court for consideration. As far as the relief ground is concerned, submission made is that the trial court erred in reckoning the period of limitation from the date on which the vehicle in question was seized i.e. 7.9.01 bur. ignored the date on which the vehicle was actually sold i.e. 7.3.03 and if time is reckoned from the date of the sale of the vehicle, the petition filed in the year 2005 was well within three years and as such, the question of petition being barred by time does not arise.
As far as other two issues raised for consideration are concerned, submission made is that when no evidence was let in by the respondents, the court below ought to have accepted the appellant''s case in toto.
To appreciate the aforesaid submission of the appellant''s counsel, it is necessary to refer to the points framed by the trial court for consideration and they are as under:
Whether the respondents have proved that the petition is barred by limitation?
Whether the respondents have proved that the petitioner corporation was totally negligent in safeguarding the interest of the respondents after seizure of the vehicle u/s 29 of the SFC Act?
Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondents are due to it the amount claimed in the petition?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order as prayed for?
The trial court answered the points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and 3 and 4 in the negative and consequently the petition was dismissed.
As far as the limitation ground is concerned, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was seized on 7.9.01 and it was sold on 7.3.03. Learned trial Judge took the date of the seizure of the vehicle as the date from which the period of limitation will have to be reckoned. This is against the Division Bench ruling of this Court in M.F.A. No. 4754/08 wherein it has been held that the cause of action to invoke the guarantor would arise from the date on which the plant and machinery has been sold. In the case on hand also, it is only after the selling of the vehicle that the appellant will come to know as to what is the liability remaining on the part of the respondents. Therefore, if date of sale of vehicle is taken into consideration i.e. 7.3.03, the petition filed in 2005 was well within time and as such, the finding of the court below on the limitation aspect is erroneous and the same is set aside.
Not withstanding the petition being filed within time, if examined on the merits of the case. the trial court has found that though the vehicle was valued at Rs. 1.90 lakhs as on 12.11.2001, the value got reduced to Rs. 1.62 lakhs when it was once again valued by the appellant on 26.11.02 and much later on 7.3.03 the vehicle was actually sold. Therefore, there has been a long gap between the date of seizure of the vehicle and the date on which the vehicle was actually sold and this delay has led to value of the vehicle getting diminished. Therefore, the trial court was of the view that there was negligence on the part of the appellant Corporation in not safeguarding the interest of the appellant after the vehicle was seized and the said conclusion therefore appears to be just one in view of the very admitted facts.
As far as the actual amount claimed by the appellant is concerned, the claim was Rs. 11,28,338/- as on 10.12.04. No evidence was placed by the appellant Corporation to substantiate as to how this amount was arrived at. No statement of accounts nor any extract of loan and transaction was produced and PW-1 the only witness examined also admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the entire transaction and under the above circumstances, the court below took the view that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent was liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs. 11,28,338/-. The said finding of the trial court also does not appear to be perverse but is based on the material placed before it.
Consequent to the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the view that the appeal fails on merits. The appeal is therefore rejected.