SURESH JINDAL Vs. DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition originally filed by three Petitioners is for a direction to the Respondent No. 1, Delhi Financial Corporation (DFC) not to arrest and detain the Petitioners 1 and 2 for the recovery of the amounts due to the DFC in proceedings under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (SFC Act) and the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887 (PLR Act). A further prayer is for the declaration that the PLR Act does not apply to Delhi and for quashing the proceedings taken thereunder. The Petitioners also seek a complete statement of accounts of the amounts due and recovered by the DFC.

(2.) On account of the failure of the Petitioner No. 3 Aar Em Alloys Pvt. Ltd., to repay the loan borrowed by it from the DFC, the latter invoked Section 32(G) of the SFC Act, and a recovery certificate dated 18th February 1998 was issued by the competent authority appointed in terms of the said provision. This certificate addressed to the Collector (Recovery), Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) required him to recover a sum of Rs. 57,87,145.70 along with pendente lite and future interest with effect from 1st November 1997. The direction was that the said sum should be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner No. 3 Company as well as Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who were both Directors of the Company and guarantors for the loan borrowed by it. The Petitioner No. 1 Suresh Jindal is the son of the Petitioner No. 3 R.C. Jindal.

(3.) The immediate cause of action for the present petition is that a final notice dated 29th October 2003 was issued by the DFC to the Petitioners stating that they had failed to pay the arrears of Rs. 86,98,745/- and were, therefore, required to appear before the Assistant Collector (R), DFC (Respondent No. 2 herein) on 28th November 2003. The notice stated that if the Petitioners 1 and 2 did not appear before the Respondent No. 2 further action for realization of dues will be taken......including the warrant of arrest or/and attachment of your movable and immovable property. This was followed by a warrant of attachment dated 5th November 2003 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 77 of the PLR Act, attaching the immoveable properties of the Petitioner No. 2 Shri R.C. Jindal being a shop at 25-B Lal Kuan, M.B. Road, Badarpur, Delhi. The said warrant of attachment mentioned the amount due as Rs. 2,31,16,123/-.