ABDUL NAVAS Vs. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Adv. Sri. C.K. Karunakaran who appears for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner availed a facility from the first respondent bank. On default, the bank initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner carried that matter before the Government and, quite surprisingly, was successful in obtaining an order of stay of the revenue recovery proceedings on condition of payment of 10 percent of the total outstandings and for remitting the balance in 50 equal installments. The Government can 5e gracious, compassionate and benevolent. But such exercise could be done, only if they have the power to do so. When requisition is made by an authority which, owing to the relevant notification under Revenue Recovery Act, is entitled to invoke that Act for recovery, it is not within the domain of the Government to interfere and pass orders of stay of such recovery proceedings. The Government can grant instalment facility or stay the recovery proceedings, only in relation to cases where the recovery proceedings are for money due to the Government and not otherwise, unless such power is expressly confirmed. Not only that, even a glance to the Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, would show that banking, negotiable instruments, currency etc. are the matters that fall in the union list and hence beyond the Legislative and executive competence of the State. Therefore, there is no Shred of authority for the State Government to interfere with the recovery proceedings in relation to bank loans initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) With the pittance that was remitted, utilising the stay order issued by the Government, the bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner challenges that notice and proceedings. The transaction is not denied; the default is not disputed. The order of the stay issued by the State Government is not an answer to recovery proceedings by the bank. The impugned proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is, therefore, with jurisdiction. There is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in it.