Sikerwal Industries vs Haryana Financial Corporation and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the teamed District Judge dated 25-1-2005, whereby an application filed by the petitioner u/s 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to stay proceedings, initiated by the respondent u/s 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951,(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was declined.

It is the case of petitioner that a writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court and therefore, the proceedings u/s 31 of the Act are required to be stayed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed rescheduling of the amount payable by the petitioner as well as the challenge is to sale of the assets, of the petitioner conducted by the corporation.

From the above facts, it is apparent that the writ petition and the proceedings u/s 31 of the Act stand on different cause of action, u/s 31 of the Act, the Corporation has sought intervention of the Court for determinate on of the amount due and payable to the Corporation. Whereas in the writ petition, the challenge is to the sale of unit, which is in exercise of the jurisdiction vested with the Corporation u/s ''29 of the Act. Still no further proceedings u/s 29 of the Act, are pending or contemplated to be initiated by the Corporation as stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Thus the proceeding before this Court in a writ petition are different than the proceedings for the computation of the amount payable to the Corporation. Therefore the proceedings u/s 31 of the Act are not required to be stayed in terms of Section 10 of the C.P.C.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court which may warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Dismissed.