SAHYOG FARM DEVELOPMENT SERVICE BEEJ BHAWAN MATHURA Vs. DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 600 1 UNIV ROAD LKO THR ITS REGISTR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinay Shanker, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Issue notice to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or an application filed for recovery of agricultural loan and, hence, the order dated 18.12.2006, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 1 in T.A. No. 629 of 2002 for recovery of an amount of Rs.33,89,617.96 from the petitioners and proforma respondent no.4 is a nullity as the loan which the petitioners had obtained from the respondent no.3 is a loan for agricultural purpose. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court reported in 2007 (25) LCD 1741, Chander vs. State of U.P. and others. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 (6) Supreme Court Cases 236, Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others. Sri Vinay Shanker, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the loan which was advanced by the petitioners is not an agricultural loan but a commercial loan and, as such, the respondent no.1 has full jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the same. He has further submitted that the respondent no.4 who is the husband of the petitioner no.2 has already preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the order passed by the respondent no.1 on the application filed by the respondent no.4 for setting aside the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the respondent no.1 and also the order by which the appeal preferred by him against the order of respondent no.1 has been dismissed. Sri Vinay Shanker has lastly submitted that the petitioners have not deposited a single penny towards repayment of the loan though the period of atleast 18 years has expired since the date on which the loan advanced to the petitioners become a payable and at present the petitioners' liability is of more than Rs.3.00 crores and, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of any relief by this Court on equitable grounds. In support of his contention Sri Vinay Shanker has relief upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1991 (2) UPLBEC 801, Jogendra Singh vs. State Bank of India and another. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force as there is material on record to show that the loan which was advanced to the petitioners was agricultural loan. In view of the above, let counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents within four weeks. List this case on 06.07.2009. In the meantime, it will be open to the petitioners to arrange buyers for purchasing the mortgaged property and in case any buyer is produced by the petitioners before the respondent no.2, his offer shall be considered by the respondent no.2 in accordance with law. In case, the petitioners fail to arrange any buyers before 06.07.2009, the respondent no.2 shall file an affidavit in this regard on or before next date fixed.