Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

Statute of Limitation Only Bars the Remedy and Does Not Extinguish the Debt – Supreme Court Refers Matter of Recoverability of Time-Barred Debts to Larger Bench

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has referred a crucial matter concerning the recoverability of time-barred debts under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 to a larger bench. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, addressed the contentious issue of whether debts considered time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963 can still be recovered using state recovery statutes.

Legal Context and Implications: The appeals before the Supreme Court challenged the enforcement actions initiated under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 against debts which were ostensibly time-barred by the Limitation Act. This raised substantial questions about the interpretation of “due” amounts under recovery laws versus extinguishment of the debt under limitation laws.

Facts and Issues: The case involved multiple parties where recovery notices were issued for debts that had allegedly surpassed the limitation period, thus raising the question of their recoverability. The appellants argued based on a precedent that debts time-barred under the Limitation Act cannot be pursued under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, a position initially supported by a three-Judge Bench decision in a related case.

Contrasting Judicial Opinions: The court highlighted differing judicial opinions on whether the limitation merely restricts legal remedies without affecting the underlying debt. It cited several precedents suggesting that statutes of limitation do not extinguish the debt but merely bar the remedy.

Role of Financial Corporations: The judgment discussed the legislative intent behind financial corporations’ recovery powers, emphasizing that these bodies have special privileges in enforcing claims against borrowers that might override typical limitation constraints.

Legal Interpretation and Precedents: The bench critically analyzed previous rulings, noting that certain key decisions were not considered in earlier judgments affecting the current legal stance on the recovery of time-barred debts.

Decision and Further Directions: Given the conflicting precedents and the substantial implications of the matter on the financial law landscape, the Supreme Court has opted to refer the issue to a larger bench. This move underscores the need for a comprehensive judgment that reconciles existing legal frameworks with contemporary financial practices.

Date of Decision: 08 May 2024

K.P. Khemka & Anr. VS Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Ors.

Similar News