JALIL AHMAD ANSARI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents no. 2,3,4,5 and 6 had taken loan from the respondent-State Bank of India for which the appellant as the guarantor. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed an order in the year 2001 for recovery of the defaulted amount from the principal debtors as well as the appellant (as guarantor). Execution proceedings were initiated before the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal in the year 2002. The matter has been pending since then. In the year 2009, on the basis of a compromise made by the principal debtors and the appellant as the guarantor, the auction scheduled to be held was postponed on the ground that the appellant as well as the principal debtors would deposit a sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs with the bank. In response thereto, the appellant is said to have deposited Rs. 2 lacs with the bank but the full amount was not deposited by the principal debtors or the appellant. Recovery proceedings continued and the appellant claimed that the amount should first be recovered from the principal debtors and if from such recovery proceedings the total amount could not be recovered, then balance should be recovered from the appellant, who is the guarantor. The Tribunal as well as the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected such prayer of the appellant. The appellant then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45784 of 2009, which has also been dismissed by order dated 15.7.2014. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) We have heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and have perused the record.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no recovery could have been made from the appellant (who was merely a guarantor) unless recovery was made first from the principal debtors. He has also submitted that there should be fairness in the action of the State authorities and in first not proceeding against the principal debtors, they have discriminated against the appellant, whose liability would have arisen after the recovery from the principal debtors could not satisfy the payment of the loan amount. He has submitted that the property of the principal debtors had been attached by order of the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal passed in the year 2002 but instead of auctioning such property of the principal debtors they are now proceeding to recover the said amount from the appellant and as such the said action of the recovery officer is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.