UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION; RECOVERY OFFICER AND R A CEMENT PRIVATE LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, ASHWANI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another challenging the sale and recovery of an amount of Rs. 6.24 lacs by the Recovery Officer of the Employees Provident Fund authorities out of the sale of moveable assets on the plea that the State Financial Corporation has a first charge over and in respect of the properties even moveable or immoveable mortgaged or charged with the Corporation. The concerned provident fund authorities have come with a case than the statutory requirement of law i.e. the Employees Provident FUIKF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 overrides the certain conditions H the contract in between the loanee and the U.P. State Financial Corporation, The learned Counsel appearing for the provident fund authorities has drawn out-attention to Section 11(2) of the Act 19.52 which is as follows:

(2.) He further says that in view of the ratio of the Judgment particularly in paragraph 40 Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Anr., 2000 2 SCR 1102 it has been held by the High Court that in a conflict between the Companies Act 1956 and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, both being special laws, the later will normally prevail over the former if there is a provision in the later special Act gives overriding effect. The Supreme Court came to a conclusion in this regard on the basis of Section 34 of the Later Act. Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Act 1993 specifically overrides the State Financial Corporation Act.

(3.) In any event, coining back to the particular case, we will find not only the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 later Act than the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 but the provision which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is part of amendment which has been incorporated only on 1st August, 1988. Therefore, the case of the respondents is squarely covered by the ratio of the Judgment as well as prevailing effect of law.