Allowed¶83

The Kakinada Coop Central Bank Ltd., v. B. Bangaru Raju & 3 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2025WA/484/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 484 of 2009, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 17.06.2025 (Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ; Ravi Cheemalapati, J., author). Kakinada Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. B. Bangaru Raju and others. Division Bench allowed the Bank's writ appeal and set aside the single Judge's direction to pay Rs.89,010/- with 6% interest for bio gas plant/NEDCAP subsidy amounts, dismissing the writ petition as barred by delay, laches and limitation for bare money-recovery claims. References: Section 151 CPC; clause 15 Letters Patent; Limitation Act. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 11.10.2007 in W.P. No. 3675/2001 set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶83

The Kakinada Coop Central Bank Ltd., Vs B. Bangaru Raju & 3 Ors. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; order dated 11.10.2007 in W.P. No. 3675/2001 set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed for mere recovery of money from the Bank nearly twelve years after completion of the bio gas plant project, was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay, laches and limitation. +1 more

¶78

Court's answer

While the Limitation Act bars the remedy of filing a suit, it does not extinguish the debt itself; a creditor may seek recovery through other statutory means only where such statute creates an additional right in the creditor's favour.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not specify any statute creating an additional right in his favour for recovery of the amount despite the claim being barred by time under the Limitation Act; therefore the writ petition deserved dismissal.

¶81

Key takeaways

The learned single Judge did not consider the belatedness in filing the writ petition; the impugned order warranted interference and had to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition having been filed with inordinate delay beyond the period of limitation for recovery of the amount.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ and Ravi Cheemalapati, J.; order per Cheemalapati, J.) allowed W.A. No. 484 of 2009 under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, setting aside the learned single Judge's order dated 11.10.2007 in W.P. No. 3675/2001, which had directed the Kakinada Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. to pay the writ petitioner Rs.89,010/- with interest at 6% in respect of amounts connected with bio gas plants financed through the Bank with NEDCAP subsidy. Held: a writ petition seeking mere recovery of money, filed nearly twelve years after completion of the project, is afflicted by delay and laches; the Limitation Act bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt, and absent a statute creating an additional right in the creditor's favour, recovery must be sought by suit; the writ petition deserved dismissal. No order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010008702009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 484 OF 2009

¶7

H Letters Patent against the order dated 11-10-2007 in WP. No. 3675/2001 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶8

The Kakinada Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶9

...Appellant/(4*^ Respondent)

¶10

AND

¶11

B. Bangaru Raju, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged 70 Years, R/o. Industrial Estate G.3 and G.4, Samalkot, East Godavari District.

¶12

...Respondent(Writ Petitioner)

¶13

The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶14

The Commissioner of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

¶15

Hyderabad.

¶16

The General Manager, District Industries Centre, East Godavari District,

¶17

Kakinada.

¶18

...Respondents(Respondent No.1 to 3)

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 990 OF 2009

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 11-10-2007 in W.P.No. 3675/2001, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BASAVA

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : M/s. BS KARTIK & PRASAD ESR LAW FIRMS (Not present)

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE (Not present)

¶24

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (Not present) Counsel for Respondent No.4 : SRI A. RAMAKRISHNA (Not present) The Court made the following :

.WA-^o.484/2009

APHC010008702009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[3483]

¶30

WRIT APPEAL NO: 484/2009

¶31

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 11-10-2007 in Wp No. 3675/2001

¶32

Between:

¶33

1.THE KAKINADA COOP CENTRAL BANK LTD. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT

¶34

AND

¶35

1.B BANGARU RAJU, S/0. SUBBA RAJU, R/0. INDUSTRIAL^ESTATE G.3 AND G.4, SAMAKOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶36

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA.

¶37

3.THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD.

¶38

4.THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,^EAST GODAVARI DISTRAICT, KAKINADA.

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2008fWAMP 3435 OF 2008

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleasedto} condone the delay of 104 days in filing the above Writ^{Appealagainstthe} order, dated 11-10-2007 in WP No. 3675/2001 and pass^{suchotherorderor} orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper^{intheinterestofjustice.}

¶42

.WA-^Nb.484/2009

¶43

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP 990 OF 2009

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tos uspend the operation of the order dated 11-10-2007^{inWPNo.3675/2001,} pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and pass such other^{orderorordersas} this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest^ofjustice.

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶47

1.SRINIVAS BASAVA

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

BS K.ARTIK & PRASAD ESR

¶50

2.BSKARTIK PRASAD ESR

¶51

3.A RAMAKRISHNA

¶52

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

¶53

SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶54

DATE : 17.06.2025

¶55

ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

¶56

Assailing the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by a learned^singleJudge in Writ Petition No.3675 of 2001, whereby and whereunder respondent no.4 was directed to pay to the petitioner Rs.89,010/- with interest, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by respondent no.4 in the writ petition.

¶57

For convenience, the parties, hereinafter will be^{referredtoasper}

¶58

their status in the writ petition.

¶59

•Ka .WA.9^o.484/2009

¶60

The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction^torespondent no.4-Bank to release the amount pending with the bank together with interest.

¶61

The contents of the writ petition, in brief, are^{thatthepetitioner} started a Small Scale Industry in the year 1968 under^{thenameandstyleM/s.} Venkateswara Containers Limited dealing in fabrication^{andweldingworks.} That the Non-conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (for short, 'NEDCAPO recognized it as one of^{theunitstogroundBio} gas plants on Turn Key basis and accordingly the firm^{hadcommissioned} many Bio gas plants financed by several banks. That^{duringtheyear1986-87,} entrusted to the unit of the petitioner, for which nearly 40 bio gas plants were the respondent no.4-Bank through their Tuni Branch^{agreedtofinanceand} accordingly the NEDCAP had released their share of^{subsidybysendingthe} cheques through the said bank. That the petitioner^{hadcompletedinstallation} of bio gas plants, for which the respondent no.4-bank^{hadtopayanamount} of Rs.89,000/-. That though the petitioner made several^{requestsanddespite} the fact that all the officers connected with the project^aswellas District Collector recommended for payment of the amount, the^{respondentno.4bank} did not pay the amount.

¶62

.WJl.!Nb.484/2009

¶63

¶64

None of the respondents filed counter-affidavit.

¶65

The learned single Judge upon considering the material^availableon record and upon appreciation of the submissions made^{bylearnedcounselfor} the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, allowed the writ petition with costs, directing^{respondentno.4to} pay Rs.89,010/- to the petitioner with interest at^6% from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit.

¶66

Assailing the same, the respondent no.4/bank in^{thewritpetition} preferred this intra court appeal under clause 15 of^{LettersPatent.}

¶67

Heard Sr/ Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for appellant. None represented the respondents in the appeal.

¶68

Sri Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for appellant, in elaboration to the grounds of appeal would contend that the writ petition,^{havingbeenfiled} for mere recovery of money, is not maintainable. He^{wouldfurthercontend} that as the original beneficiaries are not interested^{togetbiogasplants,} another set of beneficiaries were identified and unless the persons who got constructed bio gas plants became members of the society,^{thequestionof} release of loan amount does not arise. He would further^{contendthatthewrit}

¶69

.WA.^o.484/2009

¶70

¶71

petitioner suppressed the report submitted to the bank^{thatalltheunitswere} not grounded and also the factum of appointment of^{enquiryofficertowhom} the petitioner stated that he could not complete installation^{ofplantsdueto} economic troubles. He would further contend that the writ petition having been filed for recovery of the amount nearly ten (10)^yearsafter it became due the claim is barred by time and hence the writ^petition is liable to be dismissed, however, the learned single Judge, having^{failedtoconsiderthe} facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective, and without considering that the claim is hopelessly barred by^{limitation,allowedthewrit} petition. The order impugned in the writ appeal is^{unsustainableandthesame} is liable to be set aside and consequently the writ petition be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal.

¶72

Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/respondent^no.4.

¶73

The contents of the writ petition would indicate^{thatinstallationof} bio gas plants was prior to the year 1989 and the Projector^Directorand District Manager, NEDCAP vide their letters dated 17.07.1989^{and10.05.1989} requested the respondent bank to pay the amounts to^{thepetitioner.Further,} the General Manager, District Industries Centre vide^{communication} dated

¶74

.WJl.9io.484/2009

¶75

¶76

03.12.1990 had requested the respondent bank to pay the amount as per the report of Task Force. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2001 i.e. to say nearly twelve (12) years after the alleged completion of the project.

¶77

Generally, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for recovery of the amount due and payable by bank, for which limitation would be three (03) years from the date on which the same became due. It is settled that while the Limitation Act bars the remedy of filing a suit, it does not extinguish the debt itself. Creditors can still seek recovery through other statutory means, provided the object of those statutes creates an additional right in favour of the creditors. The statute of limitation only bars a remedy, while the right to recover the loan through any other suitable manner provided remains untouched. This principle is crucial for financial institutions and creditors, ensuring that their rights to recover debts remain intact despite the passage of time.

¶78

Admittedly, the writ petition is filed for mere recovery of the amount from the bank stated to be the loan amount for construction of bio gas plants, which has been filed nearly twelve (12) years after completion of the project. The petitioner did not specify any statute that creates an

¶79

'.WA.S^o.484/2009

¶80

¶81

additional right in his favour for recovery of the amount despite being barred by time under Limitation Act. Therefore, the writ petition deserves dismissal.

¶82

The learned single Judge did not take into consideration the belatedness in filing the writ petition though specifically argued by learned Government Pleader and allowed the writ petition. The order impugned warrants interference and the same has to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches, since the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay beyond period of limitation provided for recovery of amount due.

¶83

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶84

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶85

Sd/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To.

T The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. ^. The Commissioner of Industries Vijayawada. Government of Andhra Pradesh, ^ KaL^ad^^^' Manager, District Industries Centre, East Godavari District t nn» rr !° Advocate (OPUCJ a; on: I:: s"^A.^IaSs*nn^a"S

¶90