for recovering the amounts due on the said mortgage and thereupon the petitio ner filed Writ Petition No.
On February 20, 1951, he executed a mortgage deed in favour of the Bank for Rs.
By a Covenant entered into on May 5, 1948, the State of Nabha became merged in a new State called the Patiala and East Punjab States Union or more briefly the Pepsu.
Union which came into existence on August 20, 1948.
There is also a provision for service of numberice on the defaulter, when proceedings for realising the amount are taken.
by the Manauing Director.
The Ruler of Patiala became its Raj Pramukh and on the same date he promulgated an Ordinance No.
The Bank authorities ascertained the amounts due to the Bank from the said parties and were seeking to realise the same from the properties of the said debtors in the manner provided by the provisions of the Act.
We may number refer to the steps taken by the Patiala Bank for recovering the amounts due from the appellants.
jab, the Bank was having branches number only in Pepsu but in the other parts of Punjab.
On May 17, 1958, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 6 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Nos.
Both these Writ Petitions were heard together, and by their Judgment dated March 6,1959 the learned Judges held that the impugned Act and the proceedings were valid and dismissed the petitions.
On February 17, 1955, the Bank issued a numberice to the appellants under rule 3 2 stating that a sum of Rs.
The appellants also filed a petition under Art.32 of the Constitution, attacking the vires of the Act, and of the proceedings taken thereunder, on the same grounds as are raised in the appeals.
The petitioner had an account in the Nabha Branch of the Patiala State Bank under which he borrowed monies for his business.
The respondents companytest the application.
210 and 211 of 1961.
133, and hence these appeals.
This petition Was heard along with Civil Appeals Nos.
Subsequently, under the States Reorganization Act, Pepsu became part of the State of Punjab and the said Act companytinued to have force in that part of Punjab which was Popsu before merger.
Later on in exercise of a power companyferred upon the said Rajpramukh by a Supplementary Coven ant, the said Act was indefinitely extended so as to have operation throughout the State of Pepsu.
1 of 2005.
The Managing Director did number accede to this request and on January 27, 1956, be issued a certificate under P. 7 of the Act certifying that a sum of Rs.
The new State came into existence on August 20, 1948, as provided under the Covenant.
They, however, granted a certificate under Art.
133 of 1957 and 389 of 1958.
5,17,863 3 4 was due from them and calling upon them to pay the said amount or to file a written statement within fifteen days setting out their defence to the claim.
16 of 2005 BK including the impugned Act, would number lapse on August 20, 1949, but companytinue to be in force until repealed by fresh legislation.
In November, 1953,the Bank took proceeding under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
92 and 128 of 1959.
Bishan Narain, and K. P. Gupta, for the petitioner in Petn.
The petitioner is a merchant running a Steel Rolling Mills at Jaitu in what was at one time the State of Nabha.
To this the.
5,24,593 10 10 was due from the appellants and asking them to pay the amount or to file their defence to the claim within fifteen days.
226 of the Constitution, Writ Petition No.
25,478 15 A numberice under rule 7 1 was issued on December 6, 1956, and that number having been companyplied with, a certificate under a, 7 of the Act was issued.
To this, the appellants sent a reply denying their liability.
After the Constitution came into force, the petitioners and the appellants in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals respectively borrowed money from the said Bank on the security of their properties.
Bishan Narain, B. K. Sinha, B. K. Garg, S. C. Aggarwal and C. Aggarwala, for the appellants.
N. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, N. Bindra and P. D. Menon, for the respondents in both the petitions and the appeals .
Then under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Pepsu Union became merged on November 1, 1956, in the State of Punjab.
After the formation of the State of Pepsu, the Patiala Bank was operating in the entire Pepsu area, and, after its merger with the State of Pun.
133 of 1957.
To this again the appellants replied on December 7, 1955, asking that the representation previously made by them might be companysidered by the Board of Directors.
On January 6, 1956, the appellants sent another reply stating that they expected to pay a substantial amount of the loan within a short time and prayed that further proceedings might be suspended.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
WITH Civil Appeals Nos.
After the promulgation of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, Pepsu became part of the Indian Union as a Part B state, and under the provisions of the Constitution, the said Act companytinued to have force throughout the said State.
25,548 4 6 as due on the cash credit account at Lehragaga.
The judgment of Sinha C. J., Rajagopala Ayyangar, Mudholkar and Venkatarama Aiyar, JJ.,
133 of 1957, wherein they challenged the validity of the Act and of the proceedings taken thereunder on various grounds.
There are also a number of other banks, including the State Bank of India, doing the same business in the said territory were the Bank of Patiala is operating.
52,000/being the amount due by him to the Bank.
On this, the Bank would appear to have staved their hands for some time.
Petitions under Art.
389 of 1958 in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity of the determination made on October 4, 1956, and of the subsequent proceedings taken for the recovery of the said amount on the same grounds as in Writ Petition No.
The following judgments were delivered.
252 of 1955 in this Court under Art.
4,98,589 1 6 was due from the appellants and asking the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.
On October, 4, 1956, the Bank determined the liability ex parte at Rs.
Meantime, on July 7, 1956, the Bank issued a numberice under rule 3 2 demanding from the appellants a sum of Rs.
April 23.
128 of 1959 .
210 211 of 1961 and Writ Petition No.
92 of 1959 .
L. Aggarwal and A. G. Batnaparkhi, for the petitioner in Petn.
After some more attempts at getting the recovery proceedings postponed, the appellants filed in the High Court of Punjab on February 16, 1957, a petition under Art.
