SANJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Pandey and Smt. Sudha Pandey for respondent No. 3 as well as learned standing counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THESE four writ petitions raising common questions of facts and law, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Bank to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. For deciding all the writ petitions, it is sufficient to refer the pleadings in writ petition No. 7347 of 2011 Sanjay Gupta v. State of U.P., which is being treated as leading writ petition. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the recovery certificate dated 28.7.2010/27.8.2010 issued by the Punjab National Bank addressed to the Collector for recovering the amount of Rs. 12,45601/- plus interest under the provisions of the U.P. Public Moneys Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent Bank refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that initiation of recovery under the 1972 Act is fully within the jurisdiction of the Bank. It is submitted that the loan which was taken by the Society whose office bearers are the petitioners, was a loan under State sponsored scheme and the provisions of 1993 Act are not applicable in so far as State sponsored scheme is concerned. It is submitted that for recovery of the loan granted under State sponsored Scheme, 1972 Act is still available. It is submitted that the loan in question cannot be termed as "debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of 1993 Act. It is submitted that the debt which is recoverable under the 1993 Act is a debt during course of any business activity undertaken by the Bank. In the present case, Bank has not sanctioned loan in exercise of its business activity rather loan has been sanctioned under the State sponsored scheme on recommendation of the District Industry Officer. The provisions of 1972 Act have not ceased to exist after the enforcement of 1993 Act and for recovery of loan granted under State sponsored Scheme, 1972 Act can be enforced. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the Bank on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi (Smt.) v. State of U. P. and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 1941, judgment of the Apex Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and another (supra) as well as Division Bench judgment in M/s Mak Plastic (P) Ltd. and others v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 546. It is submitted that all the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the society are liable to repay the loan and the recovery certificate has rightly been amended on 26.8.2010. Allegations and counter allegations by one office bearer against another office bearer cannot be a ground for non payment of loan taken from the Bank.