http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  610-612 of 2004

PETITIONER: Karnataka State Financial Corporation

RESPONDENT: N. Narasimahaiah & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 610-612 OF 2004

S.B. SINHA, J :          INTRODUCTION 1.      Interpretation of Section 29 vis-‘-vis Section 31 of the State Financial  Corporations Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") is in question in these appeals  which arise out of a judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 passed by a  Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 37209 &  37907 of 2000, 24452 of 2001, 13354 and 16614 of 2002.

FACTUAL BACKDROP 2.      Respondents herein furnished sureties and/ or guarantees in respect of  the loans taken by the industrial concerns (Respondent \026 Company)

3.      We may notice the fact of the matter from the case of AP Rocks  Private Limited (Writ Petition No. 37209 and 30907 of 2000) before the  High Court.

       AP Rocks Private Limited is an industrial concern.  It approached the  appellant \026 Corporation for grant of loan in the form of non-convertible  debenture facility to the extent of 100 lakhs to meet its working capital  requirements.   

       Respondents who were Directors of Company executed deeds of  guarantee dated 15.05.1996 and 9.08.1996 agreeing to guarantee repayment/  redemption by the Company to the Corporation of the said non-convertible  debenture subscription together with interest, etc.  The said Company also  executed a deed of hypothecation on or about 9.08.1996 whereby and  whereunder its plants and machinery were hypothecated.  A collateral  security agreement was also executed by Shri S.K. Rajan wherefor a  property bearing No. 49, House List Khata No. 100-A, Hennarayanapalya,  Hemlet of Cholanayakamahalli, Kasba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka was  mortgaged as a security therefor.   

       Respondent No. 1 executed an agreement on 15.05.1996 in terms  whereof his property bearing Site No. 55 (old), New No. 59, Annammadevi  Temple Extension, Subedar Chatram Road, B.C. C. Division No. 22,  Bangalore was given as a collateral security.  The ’Industrial Concern’  allegedly committed defaults.   

PROCEEDINGS 4.      Appellant \026 Corporation on or about 20.11.2000 in exercise of its  power under Section 29 of the Act directed that the possession of the said  two properties of the guarantors be taken over.  Respondent No. 1 and Shri  S.K. Rajan filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

premise that the appellant \026 corporation could not have proceeded against  the guarantors under Section 29 of the Act.

       The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment while upholding  the said contention directed:

"(i)    The impugned orders passed by the  Karnataka State Financial Corporation under  Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act  authorizing its officers to take possession of the  properties of petitioners are quashed. (ii)    The Karnataka State Financial Corporation  is directed not to proceed against the property of  the surety, mortgaged/ hypothecated in its favour,  under Section 29 of the State Financial  Corporations Act. (iii)   Parties to bear their respective costs."

       Appellant is, thus, before us. SUBMISSIONS 5.      Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  the appellant, submitted:

(i)     the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned  judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that the  second part of Section 29 of the Act being an independent  provision and having not referred to an ’industrial concern’, it was  within the jurisdiction of the appellant to take possession of the  said property also.   (ii)    Section 29 of the Act confers two independent rights, viz., taking  over of the mortgaged property and sale of the mortgaged,  hypothecated and charged property.    Whereas first part of Section  29 of the Act covers taking over possession and/ or management of  the mortgaged property, the second part thereof covers the case of  sale of the property mortgaged, irrespective of the fact as to  whether the same belonged to the industrial concern or not.   (iii)   Section 29 having taken within its umbrage security and/ or  guarantee, the legislative intent being speedy recovery of the dues,  the same includes the power to take possession of the mortgaged  property of the guarantor also, being incidental to the main power  and/ or implied power of the Corporation.   (iv)    Section 31 confers the same benefit to the Corporation with an  additional remedy, viz., to pray for an interlocutory order. (v)     Section 69(c) of the Transfer of Property Act also confers power  upon the mortgagee to sale the charged property privately wherefor  taking over of possession being not a pre-requisite, the High Court  committed a serious error in coming to the conclusion that before a  property is to be sold, taking over possession thereof is mandatory.   (vi)    Section 31 of the Act would be applicable only when the loan is  called back in terms of Section 30 of the Act. (vii)   Special statutory power having been conferred on the Corporation  so as to enable it to recover its debts which serves a larger  economic interest of the country, Sections 29 and 31 of the Act  should be interpreted in such a manner which would help it to  achieve the said purpose.   

6.      Mr. Vikas Rojipura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents, on the other hand, submitted:

(i)     It is wrong to contend that similar reliefs can be claimed both  under Sections 29 and 31 of the Act as in that event it was not  necessary for the Parliament to enact two different provisions.   (ii)    Clause (aa) of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, which was  inserted by Act No. 43 of 1985 with effect from 21.08.1985,  clearly establishes that the purport and object of two sections are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

absolutely distinct and separate.   (iii)   Sections 29 and 31 confer two different rights on the corporation  which are independent of each other.  Whereas Section 29 provides  for a limited remedy, Section 31 provides for a composite remedy  to the Corporation to realize the dues both from the principal  borrower as also from the guarantor.   (iv)    Remedy both under Sections 29 and 31 being equal, speedy and  efficacious, it would be wrong to contend that both the reliefs can  be claimed simultaneously. THE ACT 7.      The Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of State  Financial Corporations.  Appellant is a Corporation established and  incorporated under the Act.

       "Industrial concern" has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Act to  mean any concern engaged or to be engaged in any of the activities specified  therein.   

       Section 29 of the Act provides for the rights of financial corporation  to realize its dues in case of default.   

       We may take notice of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act which  reads as under: "29. Rights of Financial Corporation in case of  default \026 (1) Where any industrial concern, which  is under a liability to the Financial Corporation  under an agreement, makes any default in  repayment of any loan or advance or any  instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in  relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation  or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its  agreement with the Financial Corporation, the  Financial Corporation shall have the right to take  over the management or possession or both of the  industrial concerns, as well as the right to transfer  by way of lease or sale and realize the property  pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to  the Financial Corporation."                  Section 30 of the Act inter alia provides for power to call for  repayment before the agreed period.  

       Section 31 provides for special provisions for enforcement of claims  by Financial Corporation.  It reads as under: "31. Special provisions for enforcement of claims  by Financial Corporation .\027   (1) Where an  industrial concern, in breach of any agreement,  makes any default in repayment of any loan or  advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its  obligations in relation to any guarantee given by  the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with  the terms of its agreement with the Financial  Corporation or where the Financial Corporation  requires an industrial concern to make immediate  repayment of any loan or advance under Section  30 and the industrial concern fails to make such  repayment then, without prejudice to the  provisions of Section 29 of this Act and of Section  69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of  1882), any officer of the Financial Corporation,  generally or specially authorised by the Board in  this behalf, may apply to the District Judge within  the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial  concern carries on the whole or a substantial part  of its business for one or more of the following

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

reliefs, namely\027    ( a )   for an order for the sale of the property  pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to  the Financial Corporation as security for the loan  or advance; or ( aa )   for enforcing the liability of any surety; or ( b )   for transferring the management of the  industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or ( c )   for an ad interim injunction restraining the  industrial concern from transferring or removing  its machinery or plant or equipment from the  premises of the industrial concern without the  permission of the Board, where such removal is  apprehended.  (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall state  the nature and extent of the liability of the  industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the  ground on which it is made and such other  particulars as may be prescribed."  

       Section 32 of the Act provides for the procedure in respect of the  proceedings before the District Judge on applications under Section 31; sub- section (1A) whereof reads as under: "(1-A) When the application is for the relief  mentioned in clause ( aa ) of sub-section (1) of  Section 31, the District Judge shall issue a notice  calling upon the surety to show cause on a date to  be specified in the notice why his liability should  not be enforced."           For enforcing a claim envisaged under clause (aa) of Sub-section (1)  of Section 31 of the Act, a special procedure has been laid down in sub- section (4A) of Section 32 which reads as under: "(4A) If no cause is shown on or before the date  specified in the notice under Sub-section (1A) the  district judge shall forthwith order the enforcement  of the liability of the surety."                  Section 32G of the Act, which was also inserted by Act No. 43 of  1985, provides for yet another additional remedy to a financial corporation  in the following terms: "32G. Recovery of amounts due to the Financial  Corporation as an arrear of land revenue Where any amount is due to the Financial  Corporation in respect of any accommodation  granted by it to any industrial concern, the  Financial Corporation or any person authorised by  it in writing in this behalf, may, without prejudice  to any other mode of recovery, make an  application to the State Government for the  recovery of the amount due to it, and if the State  Government or such authority, as that Government  may specify in this behalf, is satisfied, after  following such procedure as may be prescribed,  that any amount is so due, it may issue a certificate  for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector  shall proceed to recover that amount in the same  manner as an arrear of land revenue."

INTERPRETATION \026 SECTION 29 ISSUE 8.      A lender of money under the common law has the remedy to file a suit  for realization of the amount lent if the borrower does not repay the same.   The Act, however, provides for a special remedy in favour of the Financial  Corporation constituted thereunder enabling it to exercise a statutory power  of either selling the property or take over the management or possession or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

both belonging to the industrial concern.

9.      Section 29, therefore, confers an extraordinary power upon the  ’Corporation’.  It, being a ’State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the  Constitution of India, is expected to exercise its statutory powers reasonably  and bona fide.

10.     Apart from the said constitutional restrictions, the statute does not put  any embargo upon the corporation to exercise its power under Section 29 of  the Act.  Indisputably, the said provision was enacted by the Parliament with  a view to see that the dues of the Corporation are realized expeditiously.   When a statutory power is conferred, it is a trite law that the same must be  exercised within the four corners of the Statute.  Power of a lender to realize  the amount lent either by enforcing the charged and / or hypothecated or  encumbrance created on certain property and/ or proceeding simultaneously  and/ or independently against the surety/ guarantor is a statutory right.   Different statutes provide for different remedies.  We may by way of  example refer to Pawan Kumar Jain v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment  Corporation of U.P. Ltd. and Others [(2004) 6 SCC 758] where a statutory  mandate has been given to realize the dues from sale of the mortgaged  properties and then to sell other properties of the borrower.  We are,  however, not concerned with such a situation.

11.     Such a right can also indisputably be conferred by way of contract as  has been provided for under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act in  terms whereof a mortgagee is entitled to effect sale without the intervention  of the court, subject, of course, to the limitations prescribed therein.

12.     If special provisions are made in derogation to the general right of a  citizen, the statute, in our opinion, should receive strict construction.   ’Industrial concern’ has been defined under the Act.  For the purpose of  enforcing a liability of an industrial concern, recourse can be taken both  under Sections 29 and 31 of the Act.  Right of the corporation to file a suit or  take recourse to the provisions contained in Section 32G of the Act also  exists.

13.     The heading of Section 29 of the Act states "Rights of financial  corporation in case of default".   The default contemplated thereby is of the  industrial concern.  Such default would create a liability on the industrial  concern.  Such a liability would arise when the industrial concern makes any  default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof under  the agreement.  It may also arise when it fails to meet its obligation(s) in  relation to any guarantee given by the corporation.  If it otherwise fails to  comply with the terms of the agreement with the financial corporation, also  the same provisions would apply.  In the eventualities contemplated under  Section 29 of the Act, the corporation shall have the right to take over the  management or possession or both of the industrial concern.  The provision  does not stop there.  It confers an additional right as the words "as well as" is  used which confers a right on the corporation to transfer by way of lease or  sale and realize the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothetical or assigned to  the corporation.    14.     Section 29 of the Act nowhere states that the corporation can proceed  against the surety even if some properties are mortgaged or hypothecated by  it.  The right of the financial corporation in terms of Section 29 of the Act  must be exercised only on a defaulting party.  There cannot be any default as  is envisaged in Section 29 by a surety or a guarantor.  The liabilities of a  surety or the guarantor to repay the loan of the principal debtor arises only  when a default is made by the latter.

15.     The words "as well as" in our opinion play a significant role.  It  confers two different rights but such rights are to be enforced against the  same person, viz., the industrial concern.    Submission of the learned senior  counsel that the second part of Section 29 having not referred to ’industrial  concern’, any property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated  or assigned to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

financial corporation can be sold, in our opinion cannot be accepted.  It is  true that sub-section (1) of Section 29 speaks of guarantee.  But such a  guarantee is meant to be furnished by the Corporation in favour of a third  party for the benefit of the industrial concern.  It does not speak about a  surety or guarantee given in favour of the corporation for the benefit of the  industrial concern.

16.     The legislative object and intent becomes furthermore clear as in  terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act only when a property is  sold, the manner in which the sale proceeds is to be appropriated has  categorically been provided therein.

       It is significant to notice that sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act  which lays down appropriation of the sale proceeds only refers to ’industrial  concern’ and not a ’surety’ or ’guarantor’.

17.     The provisions of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act must also be  kept in mind.  It is only by reason thereof, subject of course to the contract  by the parties thereto, the liability of a surety is made coextensive with the  liability of the principal debtor.

18.     Banking practice may enable a financial corporation to ask for a  collateral security.  Such security, we would assume, may be furnished by  the Directors of a Company but furnishing of such security or guarantee is  not confined to the Directors or employees or their close relatives.  They  may be outsiders also.  The rights and liabilities of a surety and the principal  borrower are different and distinct.   

       Apart from the defences available to a principal borrower under the  provisions of the Indian Contract Act, a surety or a guarantor is entitled to  take additional defence. Such additional defence may be taken by the  guarantor not only against the corporation but also against the principal  debtor.  He, in a given situation, would be entitled to show that the contract  of guarantee has come to a not.  Ordinarily, therefore, when a guarantee is  sought to be enforced, the same must be done through a court having  appropriate jurisdiction.  In the absence of any express provision in the  statute, a person being in lawful possession cannot be deprived thereof by  reason of default on the part of a principal borrower.   

19.     Furthermore, construction of a statute would not depend upon a  contingency.  A statute must be interpreted having regard to the  constitutional provisions as also human rights.  We will deal with this aspect  of the matter a little later.

IMPLIED POWER 20.     Reference to implied and/ or incidental power of the Corporation as  was contended by Mr. Venugopal deserves outright rejection.   

21.     Our attention has been drawn to the following passage of ’Principles  of Statutory Interpretation’ by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th edition, page 365 : 10th  edition, page 391:

"\005The rule of implied prohibition is, however,  subservient to the basic principle that the Court  must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which  effectuates the legislative intent and purpose\005"           We fail to see how the aforementioned statement of law comes to the  aid to the contention of the learned counsel.

       Moreover Section 29 of the Act does not deal with a case where  express and implied conditions have been laid down in the matter of exercise  of power conferred upon a statutory authority under a Statute.  Section 29  does not envisage any prohibition at all either express or implied.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

       Let us consider the legal implication of the aforementioned statement  of law in the light of a decision of this Court.

       In Jamal Uddin Ahmad v. Abu Saleh Najmuddin and Another [(2003)  4 SCC 257], this Court stated the law, thus:          "11. Dealing with "statutes conferring power;  implied conditions, judicial review", Justice G.P.  Singh states in the Principles of Statutory  Interpretation (8th Edn., 2001, at pp.   333, 334)  that a power conferred by a statute often contains  express conditions for its exercise and in the  absence of or in addition to the express conditions  there are also implied conditions for exercise of the  power. An affirmative statute introductive of a new  law directing a thing to be done in a certain way  mandates, even if there be no negative words, that  the thing shall not be done in any other way. This  rule of implied prohibition is subservient to the  basic principle that the court must, as far as  possible, attach a construction which effectuates  the legislative intent and purpose. Further, the rule  of implied prohibition does not negate the  principle that an express grant of statutory power  carries with it by necessary implication the  authority to use all reasonable means to make such  grant effective. To illustrate, an Act of Parliament  conferring jurisdiction over an offence implies a  power in that jurisdiction to make out a warrant  and secure production of the person charged with  the offence; power conferred on the Magistrate to  grant maintenance under Section 125 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent vagrancy  implies a power to allow interim maintenance;  power conferred on a local authority to issue  licences for holding hats or fairs implies incidental  power to fix days therefor; power conferred to  compel canegrowers to supply cane to sugar  factories implies an incidental power to ensure  payment of price\005"

       A statutory authority, thus, may have an implied power to effectuate  exercise of substantive power, but the same never means that if a remedy is  provided to take action against one in a particular manner, it may not only be  exercised against him but also against the other in the same manner.

       It is a trite law that the entire statute must be first read as a whole then  section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word.   [See Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.  Ltd. and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 424, Deewan Singh & Ors. v. Rajendra Pd.  Ardevi & Ors. 2007 (1) SCALE 32 and Sarabjit Rick Singh v.   Union of India, 2007 (14) SCALE 263]

SECTION 31 - ISSUE 22.     Keeping the aforementioned legal principles in mind, we may notice  the other limb of the argument of Mr. Venugopal that Section 31 of the Act  is to be taken recourse to only when an interlocutory order is required to be  sought for and not otherwise.

       Section 31 of the Act provides for a special provision.  It, apart from  the default on the part of the industrial concern, can be invoked where the  financial corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate  repayment of loan or advance in terms of Section 30 if and when such  requirement is not met.  The aforementioned provision could be resorted to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

by the Corporation, without prejudice, to its rights under the provisions of  Section 29 as also Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and for the said  purpose it is required to apply to the District Judge having appropriate  jurisdiction.  Section 31 of the Act provides for the reliefs which may be  sought for by the Corporation strictly in terms thereof.  Clause (aa) of sub- section (1) of Section 31 of the Act provides for a final relief.  It does not  speak of any interlocutory order.  Clause (aa), as noticed hereinbefore, has  been inserted by Act No. 43 of 1985.  Thus, prior thereto even Section 31  could not have been taken recourse to against a surety.   

23.     Such a relief, if prayed for, would also lead to grant of a final relief  and not an interlocutory one.  Similarly, clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of  Section 31 of the Act also provides for a final relief.  Only clause (c) of Sub- section (1) of Section 31 of the Act empowers the District Judge in the event  any application is filed by the Corporation to pass an ad interim injunction.   The very fact that Section 31 uses the terminology "without prejudice" to the  provisions of Section 29 of the Act and/ or Section 69 of the Transfer of  Property Act, it clearly postulates an additional relief.  What can be done by  invoking Section 29 of the Act can inter alia be done by invoking Section 31  thereof also but therefor a different procedure has to be adopted.  Section 31  also provides for a relief against a surety and not confined to the industrial  concern alone.  Sub-section (2) of Section 31 also refers to industrial  concern and not the surety.  The legislative intent, therefore, to our mind, is  clear and unambiguous.

SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT \026 EFFECT

24.     Sub-section (1A) of Section 32 of the Act lays down a procedure  when clause (aa) of Sub-section (1) of Section 31 thereof is invoked.  Sub- section (4A) of Section 31 also empowers the court to forthwith order the  enforcement of the liability of the surety if no cause is shown on or before  the date notified by the parties.  However, in the event, a cause is shown  upon making an investigation as provided for under Sub-section (6) of  Section 32, a final order can be passed in terms of Sub-section (7) thereof.

25.     Significantly, by Act No. 43 of 1985, Section 32G of the Act was also  inserted.  It does not speak of an industrial concern.  Section 32G, therefore,  can be resorted to both against the industrial concern as also the security.  It  is so held by this Court in Delhi Financial Corpn. And Another v. Rajiv  Anand and Others [(2004) 11 SCC 625] in the following terms:

"\005Thus a provision incorporated by the  legislature with the intention to enable financial  corporations to speedily recover amounts due to  them cannot be whittled down by giving an  interpretation which would render it nugatory."   

26.     While interpreting the provisions of a statute, the court employs  different principles or canons.  To interpret a statute in a reasonable manner,  the court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable legislator/ author.   [See New India Assurance Company Ltd.  v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr.  [JT 2008 (1) SC 31]  Attempt on the part of the court while interpreting the  provisions of a statute should, therefore, be to pose a question as to why one  provision has been amended and the other was not?  Why one terminology  has been used while inserting a statutory provision and a different clause in  another?  It is well-known that casus omissus cannot be supplied. [See  Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit (2005) 5 SCC 598 and J. Srinivasa Rao v. Govt.  of A.P. & Anr 2006 (13) SCALE 27 and Southern Petrochemical Industries  Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. and Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 447]   

27.     The legislative intent, in our opinion, is manifest.  The intention of the  Parliament in enacting Sections 29 and 31 of the Act was not similar.   Whereas Section 29 of the Act consists of the property of the industrial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

concern, Section 31 takes within its sweep both the property of the industrial  concern and as that of the surety.  None of the provisions control each other.   The Parliament intended to provide an additional remedy for recovery of the  amount in favour of the Corporation by proceeding against a surety only in  terms of Section 31 of the Act and not under Section 29 thereof.   

THE EFFECT \026 OF

28.     A Corporation, after coming into force of Section 32G of the Act has  four remedies, viz.:

(i)     to file a suit (ii)    to take recourse to Section 29; (iii)   to take recourse to Section 31; and (iv)    to take recourse to Section 32G of the Act.

29.     In A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and  Another [(1994) 2 SCC 647], this Court held:

"19. The right vested in the Corporation under  Section 29 of the Act is besides the right already  possessed at common law to institute a suit or the  right available to it under Section 31 of the Act\005"           Section 32G of the Act provides for an additional remedy.                  It is, however, interesting to note that while upholding the right of the  Corporation to opt for either Section 29 or Section 31 of the Act, it was  opined:

"\005In our opinion the Corporation can initially  take recourse to Section 31 of the Act but  withdraw or abandon it at any stage and take  recourse to the provisions of Section 29 of the Act,  which section deals with not only the rights but  also provides a self-contained remedy to the  Corporation for recovery of its dues. If the  Corporation chooses to take recourse to the  remedy available under Section 31 of the Act and  pursues the same to the logical conclusion and  obtains an order or decree, it may thereafter  execute the order or decree, in the manner  provided by Section 32(7) and (8) of the Act. The  Corporation, however, may withdraw or abandon  the proceedings at that stage and take recourse to  the provisions of Section 29 of the Act\005"

30.     Right of property, although no longer a fundamental right, is still a  constitutional right.  It is also human right.  In absence of any provision  either expressly or by necessary implication, depriving a person therefrom,  the court shall not construe a provision leaning in favour of such deprivation.   

       Recently, this Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. v.  Revamma & Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 59] dealing with adverse possession  opined:

"Human rights have been historically  considered in the realm of individual rights such  as, right to health, right to livelihood, right to  shelter and employment etc. but now human rights  are gaining a multifaceted dimension. Right to  property is also considered very much a part of the  new dimension. Therefore, even claim of adverse  possession has to be read in that context. The  activist approach of the English Courts is quite

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

visible from the judgement of Beaulane Properties  Ltd. v. Palmer  [2005 (3) WLR 554 : 2005 EWHC  817 (Ch.)] and JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. United  Kingdom [2005] ECHR 921  [2005] 49 ERG 90,  [2005] ECHR 921], The court herein tried to read  the Human Rights position in the context of  adverse possession. But what is commendable is  that the dimension of human rights has widened so  much that now property dispute issues are also  being raised within the contours of human rights."   

31.     A surety may be a Director of the Company.  He also may not be.   Even if he is a close relative of the Director or the Managing Director of the  Company, the same is not relevant.  A Director of the Company is not an  industrial concern.  He in his capacity as a surety would certainly not be.  A  juristic person is a separate legal entity.  Its veil can be lifted or pierced only  in certain situations. [See Salomon v. Salomon and Co. [1897 AC 22], Dal  Chand and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 ITR  458, Juggilal Kamlapat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 1  SCR 988 = 1969 (73) ITR 702 and Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar  (2003) 6 SCC 1]

32.     Interpretation of a statute would not depend upon a contingency.  It  has to be interpreted on its own.  It is a trite law that the court would  ordinarily take recourse to the golden rule of literal interpretation.  It is not a  case where we are dealing with a defect in the legislative drafting.  We  cannot presume any.  In a case where a court has to weigh between a right of  recovery and protection of a right, it would also lean in favour of the person  who is going to be deprived therefrom.  It would not be the other way round.   Only because a speedy remedy is provided for that would itself lead to the  conclusion that the provisions of the Act have to be extended although the  statute does not say so.  The object of the Act would be a relevant factor for  interpretation only when the language is not clear and when two meanings  are possible and not in a case where the plain language leads to only one  conclusion.

33.     Even if the legislation is beneficient, the same by itself would not be  held to be extendable to a situation which the statute does not contemplate.  [S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 SC 582]  

       In Attorney General v. Milne [1914-15] All E.R. Rep. 1061], Lord  Dunedin states: "Now, prima facie one would expect that the scope  of the two sets of provisions would be the same,  i.e., in other words that the question must be  answered as to those kinds of property which are  swept in by s.2, just as much as to those which fall  under s.1.  Inasmuch, however, as this is a taxing  statute, and the duty here is an additional duty, I  consider that it must be shown that the words  would clearly cover the individual case to which it  is right to apply them."

34.     It is now well-settled that when more than one remedy is provided for  an option is given to a suiter to opt for one or the other remedy.  Such a  provision is not ultra vires as has been held by this Court in Maganlal  Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and  Others [(1974) 2 SCC 402], Director of Industries, U.P. and Others v. Deep  Chand Agarwal [(1980) 2 SCC 332] Rajiv Anand (supra).

CONCLUSION 35.     For the views we have taken, it is not necessary for us to consider the  question as to whether before a property is put to sale, possession is required  to be taken.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

36.     For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals  which are dismissed accordingly.  Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/- in  each case.