Limitation and coercive recovery under special statutes referred to a larger Bench for authoritative resolution

The order addresses whether time-barred dues can still be recovered under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 read with the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. It examines competing authorities on whether limitation extinguishes only the remedy or also blocks coercive recovery under special recovery statutes, and notes the interaction between earlier precedents and the statutory scheme. Finding that the issue needs authoritative resolution beyond a two-Judge Bench, the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate three-Judge Bench. No final determination on recoverability of the alleged time-barred dues is made.

---

---

Issues: Whether the controversy concerning recovery of time-barred dues under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 read with the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 requires consideration by a larger Bench in view of the perceived tension between the earlier decisions on limitation and statutory recovery.

Analysis: The order examines the competing lines of authority on whether limitation merely bars the remedy or also prevents coercive recovery under special recovery statutes. It notes the prior view that the relevant recovery provisions confer a distinct statutory power to recover amounts due as arrears of land revenue, while also recognising that the issue cannot be conclusively resolved at the two-Judge level in light of the questions raised about the interaction between the earlier authorities and the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The matter is required to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate three-Judge Bench.

Final Conclusion: No final ruling on the merits of the recoverability of the alleged time-barred dues is rendered in this order, and the controversy is referred for consideration by a larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a two-Judge Bench finds that the controversy involves questions requiring authoritative resolution after considering the relevant competing precedents and statutory scheme, the matter may be referred for adjudication by a larger Bench instead of finally deciding the merits.

---