UCO BANK Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of order Annexure P/11 dtd. 8/10/2021 passed by learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and order Annexure P/12 dtd. 14/10/2021 passed by learned Collector Through Deputy Collector, Raisen.

(2.) Shri Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar, learned counsel for the petitioner/UCO Bank submits that petitioner/UCO Bank is a secured creditor to the respondent No.5. They have advanced loan to the respondent No.5. When there was default in payment of the loan, the petitioner/UCO Bank had moved an application under Sec. 14 of Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which was allowed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Raisen vide order dtd. 29/11/2021 passed in CAse No.0048-B-121-Additional Collector-2021. He also submits that after allowing the aforesaid application, the Union of respondent No.5 i.e. respondent No.6 had moved an application under Sec. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which too has been allowed by learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhopal directing the Collector, Raisen to recover dues of the Labourer by auctioning property of the respondent No.5. He further submits that the issue in narrow compass is as to whether a secured creditor like Bank will have a first charge over the property or that charge will be in the hands of the respondent No.6 under Sec. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) He places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank versus Union of India and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 227 to contend that Sec. 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was under consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court the provisions of which are pari materia to the provisions of Sec. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and after noting the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Apex Court has held that the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have overriding effect over other laws as it reads as under:-"35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws- The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." He lastly submits that the Apex Court has held that the dues of a secured creditor i.e. petitioner/UCO Bank will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Act,1944 as even after insertion of Sec. 11E in the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 8/4/2011, the provisions contained in Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.