8 OCTOBER, 2018.

Doctrine of election  - Time and again this court has held that the recitals in the order sheet with regard to what transpired before the High Court are sacrosanct - A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case - A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands.Held,  The appellant initially took a conscious and considered stand before the Company Judge, staking a claim for being substituted as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act consequent to the assignment of debt to it by the IFCI. That the claim was not simply with regard to assignment of an actionable claim under Section 130 of the T.P. Act is evident from its own pleadings and the pursis filed by the IFCI before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. After the claim of the appellant of being a secured creditor was rejected by the Company Judge, and the appellant realised the unsustainability of its claim in the law, it made a complete volte face from its earlier stand and surprisingly, contrary to its own pleadings, now contended that it had never sought the status of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The contention of the appellant that it had never sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act is additionally belied from the recitals contained in the order dated 07.09.2015. Appeal dismissed (2018)2 SCeJ 1470

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.