SPA/429/2018 on 13 August, 2025

0
5

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/429/2018 on 13 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                  COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA No. 427 of 2018
                               With
                               SPA No. 429 of 2018
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel
for the appellant.

2. None present for the respondents.

3. In the interest of justice, the delay
in filing the appeals is hereby
condonbed. Accordingly, delay
condonation applications (CLMA No. 7784
of 2018 and CLMA No. 7782 of 2018) are
allowed.

4. These intra-court appeals have
been filed by U.P. Financial Corporation
challenging the common judgment dated
14.02.2018 passed in WPMS No. 525 of
2012 and WPMS No. 2181 of 2012. By
the impugned judgment, learned Single
Judge, by relying upon the law declared
by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs.
N. Narasimahaiah & others
reported in
(2008) 5 SCC 176, held that the right
available to State Financial Corporation
under Section 29 of State Financial
Corporation Act, 1951 is available only
against defaulting industrial concerns
and not against the surety. However, it
was observed by learned Single Judge
that respondent shall be at liberty to
proceed against the writ petitioners, in
accordance with law.

4. The view taken by learned Single
Judge is supported by law of the land, as
declared by the judgment stated above.
The view taken by learned Single Judge
is supported by subsequent judgment
rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case Subhransu Sekhar Padhi vs.
Gunamani Swain & others
, reported in
2014 (12) SCC 368.

5. Thus, we do not find any scope for
interference with the impugned
judgment. Both the appeals are,
therefore, dismissed. However, appellant
shall be at liberty to adopt such other
modes of recovery, as are permissible
under the law.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.08.2025

Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH
Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369

ASWAL
512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1
FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.08.13 21:42:32 -07’00’



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here