M USHMAN Vs. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in W. P (C) No. 10833 of 2004, who failed to get the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the Kerala Financial Corporation against him personally for recovery of loan amounts due from a Company by name Cedicom (India) Private Ltd., set aside, is the appellant in this writ appeal.

(2.) The appellant, describing himself as "one among the share holders of the Company, who acted for some time as a Director / Chairman of the Company", challenged the revenue recovery proceedings initiated personally against him for the dues of the Company inter alia on the ground that "he is neither a surety nor a guarantor for the debts, if any, of Cedicom (India) Private Ltd." He also challenged the recovery on the ground that the Kerala Financial Corporation had taken over the properties mortgaged by the Company in exercise of their powers under S.29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (SFC Act) and therefore they could not have simultaneously initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, which they actually did by the impugned proceedings. Therefore, it should be taken that once action under S.29 of the SFC Act has been initiated, the proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act was abandoned, contends the petitioner. The petitioner on these grounds submits that Exts. P1 and P2 proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act is hit by the vice of limitation, the same having been initiated beyond the period of three years prescribed under the Limitation Act for enforcement of personal liability.

(3.) In the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge, it appears that the appellant took another contention also to the effect that once the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Corporations Act (DRT Act) came into force, revenue recovery proceedings are no longer maintainable for recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions.