ARUN KUMAR GOENKA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -At the first hearing of the petitioner it had been put to learned Counsel for the petitioner that this Court ought not to exercise territorial jurisdiction. My views had already been articulated in Yogesh Saraf v. The Pardeshiya Industrial and Investment Corp. U.P. Ltd, 2005 VIII AD (DELHI) 240.

(2.) Nevertheless, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the view taken by me in that case by submitting that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the Recovery Certificate issued by the Collector, Lucknow to the Collector-Divisional Commissioner, New Delhi. There is no depute that the petitioner is a Guarantor as well as Director of the Company.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited v. The State of U.P., 1995 ALL. L.J. 1517. In that case the Court was not concerned with recoveries sought to be effected under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The provisions of law are dissimilar in vital content. Reliance on the observations of the Division Bench in T.K. Subramonia lyer v. Income-tax Officer, New Delhi, AIR 1957 Kerala 190 are also not apposite for the same reason. The powers of effecting recoveries under the Income-tax Act was at the fulcrum of the discussion. In this respect the decision of this Court in Callipers Naigai Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 110 (2004) DLT 41=2004 (73) DRJ 104 speaks conclusively against the petitioner. Without intending to detract in any way from the ratio in that judgment it appears to me that the distinguishing feature is that in the present case the Recovery Certificate is issued by the Managing Director of the respondent company under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. Once that Certificate is issued, it attains legal efficacy. It is only thereafter that Section 5-A of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 comes into play for the simple reason that the Certificate issued under Section 3 has to be given effect to in a territory which is outside Uttar Pradesh. It is for that purpose that Section 5-A inserted into Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 by UP XI of 1965 becomes relevant. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that along with the communication addressed to the Collector-Divisional Commissioner, New Delhi by the Collector, Lucknow, UP the Certificate issued under Section 3 by the Managing Director of the respondent had also been forwarded. This is the fine distinction between the present case and the cases relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The difference is that in the other cases the power to effect recoveries emanated from the Certificate issued by the Collector. In the present case this is not so as the power arises for the Certificate issued by the Managing Director under Section 3. Hypertechnicalities, therefore, would not persuade me to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The Writ Petition is without merit hence dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.