BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-petitioner Bank advanced loans to respondent No. 4-M/s. Jagatjit Fasteners (P) Ltd., Kapurthala. The Company mortgaged its property/land situated in Khasra No. 6391/5367 (39K 14M) with the Bank on 3.9.1980 and 30.9.1982. The Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,42,290.94 along with interest against the Company on 17.9.1985, and obtained a decree front the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 17.9,1998.

(2.) IN the meantime, Recovery Certificates No. 3112 dated 15.12.1985 for Rs. 2,11,374 and No. 2949 dated 18.6.1985 for Rs. 3,48,344.52, being dues of Provident Fund, ESI, and wages of workers, were sent by the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Jalandhar to the Collector Kapurthala. The workers filed a Writ of Mandamus CWP No. 1276 of 1987 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for early recovery of their dues. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court vide order dated 1.6.1987 on the written undertaking of the Collector Kapurthala that the workers dues would be recovered at an early date. The property was attached under Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter 'the Act') by the Collector Kapurthala vide order dated 11.5.1987. The property was put to auction on 13.6.1988 and 20.7.1988 but did not attract sufficient bids.

(3.) THE Bank filed ROR No. 423 of 1995-96 seeking to revise the order of the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 6.10.1997 dismissed the petition. The Bank filed Misc. No. 10 of 1997-98 for review on the ground that its Counsel was unintentionally absent on the date of hearing, as he had been informed of the date 4 days later. The Financial Commissioner Revenue vide order dated 9.2.1998 dismissed the review application. Against those orders, the Bank filed CWP No. 5412 of 1996. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide order dated 15.9.1999 held that it was incumbent on the Financial Commissioner to hear the Bank before passing any order, particularly when notice of the date of hearing had been conveyed to the Bank's counsel 4 days later, and remanded the matter for fresh decision.