DELHI FINANCIAL CORPN Vs. RAJIV ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment. In all these cases monies had been borrowed from financial corporations. Action was initiated under S. 32-G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The State Government having appointed the respective Managing Directors as the authority under S. 32-G, certificates of recovery were issued by the Managing Directors. Writ petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the appointment of the Managing Directors as the authority and the certificates of recovery.

(2.) The Delhi High Court has, in the judgment impugned in Civil Appeals Nos. 4014-17 and 4018-21 of 1998, held that the appointment of the Managing Director was against the principle that "no man can be a judge in his own cause" and struck down the appointment of the Managing Director and accordingly struck down the certificate of recovery. On the other hand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has in the judgment, impugned in Civil Appeal No. 7818 of 2002, disagreed with the view of the Delhi High Court and has upheld the appointment of the Managing Director. However, on facts of that case, it was held that the opportunity of being heard had not been granted and the matter was referred back for giving a hearing to the party and passing a fresh order. The financial corporations being aggrieved by the judgment of the Delhi High Court have come in appeal against that judgment. The party being aggrieved by the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has come in appeal against that judgment.

(3.) At this stage it must be mentioned that even though the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions on the abovementioned ground, all other points raised in the writ petitions were answered against the party. Mr Mehta relied upon the authorities of this Court in the cases of Northern Rly. Coop. Society Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Employers, India Cable Co. v. Workmen and submitted that even though the findings on the other points were against his clients and the appeal had only been filed by the financial corporations, the respondents could still support that judgment on all available points. We have accepted that proposition. We, therefore, heard these appeals on all points canvassed before us.