CHARANJEET GABA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the notification dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P-16) issued by respondent No.1, whereby respondent no.3 Managing Director of the Haryana Financial Corporation has been appointed as specified authority under Section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the order dated 30.3.2010/1.4.2010 (Annexure P-13) passed by the said respondent No.3 exercising its powers under Section 32-G of the Act as well as the recovery certificate dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure P-11) issued in pursuance of the said order passed under Section 32-G of the Act.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5-borrower company of whom the petitioner was a Director had been granted a term loan for Rs.88,74,000/- which to be paid within a period of 8 years by way of 28 quarterly installments. The loan agreement between the company and the Corporation was executed on 17.3.1997 and the machinery installed in the premises of the company was hypothecated vide separate deed of hypothecation and deed of guarantee was also signed by the Directors including the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 17.3.1997. Due to financial irregularities in the company, petitioner had resigned from directorship on 6.4.1998, and on 29.7.1998 Corporation had recalled the loan granted to respondent no.5 and notice in this regard was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that his account was settled by the respondent No.5-company in October, 1998 and he had intimated the factum of his resignation to the Registrar of the Companies and also to the respondent-Corporation vide letter dated 19.12.1998. Due to the default, the Financial Corporation had taken over the possession of the assets of the company on 31.8.1999 and he had also informed that company was misappropriating the hypothecated property. The industrial unit of the respondent company was put to auction and sold for Rs.61 lacs in pursuance of advertisement dated 29.11.1999. Reference was also made to the criminal proceedings between the petitioner and the other Directors initiated by the petitioner. It was alleged that though the petitioner resigned, he was served a notice dated 26.5.2010 from the Assistant Collector, Karol Bagh Dariyaganj, New Delhi regarding the recovery of Rs.5,72,74,128/- as arrears of land revenue on the basis of some order passed by respondent No.3 and accordingly the petitioner had approached the said Assistant Collector and was informed that recovery was being effected against him in view of the letter dated 21.4.2010, (Annexure P-11) issued by the respondent-Corporation. In the background of this the present writ petition came to be filed alleging that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order dated 30.3.2010/1.4.2010 (Annexure P-13) and even challenge was laid to the notification whereby respondent No.3 had been appointed as specified authority for the purpose of Section 32-G of the Act and also that the same was barred not having been filed within three years from the date of auction.

(3.) In the written statement filed by respondents No.2 to 4- Corporation, it was alleged that the petitioner had executed personal bond of guarantee being a Director of the company dated 17.3.1997 and since the company had failed to repay the loan, therefore, the proceedings have been initiated against it and its Directors. The factum of intimation of resignation and taking of possession of the unit was admitted. It was further alleged that after selling the assets for Rs.61 lacs on 4.1.2000 and after giving credit of the sale proceeds an amount of Rs.60,62,284/- were found recoverable from the company and firstly recovery certificates were issued under the Haryana Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 on 22.8.2000 and thereafter on 10.8.2005, but the said recovery certificates were received back, as whereabouts of the guarantors were not traceable. The Corporation also pleaded that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, 2003 2 SCC 455, proceedings under the Haryana Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 could not be pursued and accordingly notice dated 8.3.2010 under Section 32-G of the Act was issued and since no one has appeared before the specified authority, the specified authority has proceeded to determine the amount under Section 32-G of the Act. Accordingly, recovery certificate was issued on 19.4.2010 for Rs.5,72,74,128/- with further interest.