Subbarayalu Naidu Vs. Papammal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and financial institutions. 1. there is no doubt that article 44 of the limitation act is the article properly applicable: and that the suit is time barred as regards all the suit properties. its dismissal as against the defendants who did not appeal and were not impleaded in the lower appellate court is justified by order xli, rule 33, of the code of civil procedure vide peria krishnasami naik v. aiyappa naik 24 ind. cas. 924 : 1 l.w. 376 and venkatachela pillai v. ranga pillai 28 ind. cas. 694 : 17 m.l.t. 220 : 28 m.l.j. 334.2. the second appeal is dismissed with costs (one set).