M. P. MITTAL versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 940 · Decided: 10-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
940 
M. P. MITTAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
October JO, 1984 
[R. S. PATHAK AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Articles 32 and 226-Whether Court can decline 
relief if its grant would de.feat the interests of justice. 
D 
Dividend due and payable-Whether can be recovered as an arrear of land 
E 
F 
G 
H 
revenue including the mode of detention where such right is founded in private 
agreement. 
The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short, 
the Corporation) underwrote some preference shares of M/s. Depro Foods 
Limited. The appellant Managing Director of M/s. Depro Foods Ltd. 
guaranteed by an agreement in his personal capacity the payment of the divi-
dend income due in respect of the aforesaid shares to the Corporation. One of 
the provisions in the guarantee agreement declared '
1that the dues on account 
of this guarantee will be recoverable in the manner in which land revenue is 
collected by the Government." The Corporation applied to the Assistand 
Collector for instituting· recover proceedings, against the appellant because 
M/s. Depro Foods Ltd. failed to pay Rs, 1,96,961 representing the dividend 
payable by it. The Assistant Collector issued a warrant for the arrest of the 
appellant since he made no effort to pay up the amount due from him. The 
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the recovery procee-
dings which was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) This Court always has power to refuse relief where the peti-
tioner seeks to invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to secure a dishonest 
advantages or perpetuate an unjust gain. ·under Art. 226 of the Constitution, 
it i! open to the High Court to consider whether, in the exercise of its un-
doubted discreationary jurisdiction, it should decline relief to such petitioner 
if the grant of relief would defeat the interests of justice, The High Court was 
fully justified in refusing relief to the oetitoner. [943Cj; Bl 
M.P. MITTAL v. HARYANA"(Pathak, J.) 
941 
(2) In the instant case the appellant knowingly and deliberately entered 
into the Guarantee Agreement, and is liable as Guarantor to make payment of 
the dividend due from Messrs Depro Foods Limited. It was not contended 
that the appellant in fact does not possess sufficient funds or cannot avail of 
sufficient personal oroperty for the purpose of discharging the liability. The 
record :-Jso shows that the appellant mad•! no attempt to discharge the liability. 
When that is so he is oot entitled to relief in these proceedings. [942H; 943A-B] 
(3) It is desirable that th!! High Court, when dismissing a writ petition 
in lirnine should set forth a brief statement of the reasons for its order instead 
of disposing of the proceedings by the single word 'dismissed' especially in those 
cases where the matter in controversy in the subject of judicial examination for 
the first time and has not been processed earlier by an inferior judicial or qua'si-
judicial authority. [943E·FJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1936 of 1978. 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 2nd August, 1978 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil 
. Writ Petition No. 3272 of 1978. 
A 
B 
c 
K.K. Jain, S.K. Gupta, P. Dayal and Arun D. Sauger for the 
D 
Appellant. 
Harbans Lal, Ms. Kailash Mehta and R.N. Poddur or the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATHAK, J This appeal by special leave is directed against 
E 
the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
dismissing a writ petition in limine. 
Messrs. Depro Foods Limited entered into a contract with the 
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, where-
by the said Corporation underwrote preference shares of Messrs. 
F 
Depro Foods Limited of Rs. JOO each for a total value of Rs. 3.6 
·lacs on which a dividend of 9.5% per annum was payable. The 
appellant who was apparently, at the relevant time, the Managing 
Director of Messrs. 
Depro Foods Limited, executed an agreement 
under which he guaranteed in his personal capacity the payment of 
the dividend income due in respect of the aforesaid shares to the 
U 
said Corporation. It .is not disputed that Messrs. Depro Foods 
Limited did not pay Rs. l ,96,961 representing the dividend payable to 
the said Corporation, and therefore the appellant became personally 
liable as Guarantor to pay that amount. It

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.