JAGDISH RAI Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notice dated 31-1-2007 (P-5), issued to the petitioner under Section 32g of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act' ). The notice has been issued by the respondent to effect recovery of Rs. 35,49,788/- and another amount of rs. 86,24,163/- with further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1-6-2006 and 1-9-2006 respectively, with half yearly rests until realization besides other expenses. It is appropriate to mention that under section 32g of the Act, the recovery is to be effected as arrears of land revenue.

(2.) BRIEF facts may first be noticed. The petitioner has been a partner in the firm m/s. Annapurna Udyog, Kaithal. The aforesaid firm was sanctioned term loan by the respondent on 28-12-1992, amounting to rs. 12. 15 lacs. Earlier to that another amount of Rs. 4. 50 lacs on 10-9-1991 was also sanctioned. According to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the land, plant, building and machinery (P-1 and P-2)were mortgaged With the respondent. In addition, the firm had also furnished a collateral security by creating a mortgage of six marlas of land situated at village Patti chaudhary, Tehsil and District Kaithal in order to secure the loan. It is claimed by the petitioner that against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 4. 50 lacs, the firm availed an amount of Rs. 4. 32 lacs. The firm also availed an amount of Rs. 6. 87 lacs against the sanctioned loan of Rs. 12. 15 lacs. They failed to repay the loan amount to the respondent as per terms and conditions. A sum of Rs. 50. 582/- was, however, paid back. On account of the default the respondent took over and sold the factory in the year 1995 for about Rs. 5 lacs as well as collateral security of six marlas of land in the year 2000 for a total consideration of Rs. 55. 000/-, On 7-6-2005, the petitioner received a notice (P-3) stating therein that a sum of Rs. 90. 86 lacs was due from the petitioner, which he was to deposit by 1-7-2005. The notice was issued under the provisions of the Haryana public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 (for brevity, 'the 1979 Act' ). The aforesaid notice was challenged by the petitioner by filling C. W. P. No. 11263 of 2005, which was allowed on 10-10-2006 by a Division bench of this Court on the ground that respondent did not have any jurisdiction to issue such a notice of recovery as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corporation and others, (2003)2 SCC 455 : (AIR 2003 SC 2103 ). This Court while allowing the writ petition and quashing the recovery certificate granted liberty to the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner as per law. After the aforesaid decision of this court, respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 31-1-2007 by invoking provisions of Section 32g of the Act requiring the petitioner to pay approximately a sum of Rs. 1. 25 crores.

(3.) THE petition has been opposed by the respondent by filing written statement. It has been pointed out in the written statement that M/s. Annapurna Udyog, Kai|thal, is a partnership concern and the petitioner is one of the partner. The firm was set up for manufacturing Gram Dal and grinding of wheat on job basis. For the aforesaid purpose, it was sanctioned a loan of. Rs. 2. 46 lacs and the availed amount was Rs. 2. 00 lacs and that amount was adjusted. In 1991, the firm added one plant for manufacturing masri Dal and it was sanctioned loan of Rs. 4. 50 lacs on 10-9-1991 for construction of building and installation of new machinery. The amount of Rs. 4. 33 lacs was disbursed, vide mortgage deed dated 15-11-1991. The firm had paid only a sum of Rs. 200/- on 19-11-1992. The payment of sum of Rs. 50. 582/- claims to have been paid by the petitioner, has also been disputed. The respondent-Corporation again sanctioned a loan of Rs. 12. 15 lacs on 28-12-1992 and the firm had availed a sum of Rs. 6. 87 lacs, vide mortgage deed dated 26-2-1993. When the firm committed default, possession of the Unit was taken over under Section 29 of the Act on 31-5-1994 and it was sold for Rs. 5. 70 lacs on 9-5-1995. Accordingly, the sale proceeds were credited to their loan account. The collateral security was also disposed of by the respondent for Rs, 51. 000/- on 16-2-2000 and the amount was credited to the loan account. It has been claimed that the total outstanding dues are as under :-Account-I: Rs. 29,56,664/- plus interest with effect from 1-6-2005. Account-II: Rs. 70. 63. 057/- plus interest with effect from 1-9-2005. The respondent has denied that there is any period of limitation provided by the Act. It is claimed that recovery of outstanding due is an ongoing process. According to the respondent, the Parliament intentionally did not prescribe any period of limitation in the act because it was fully aware of the recovery of public dues and the faults which are likely to be committed in repayment of the loan. It has also been pointed out that the writ petition is premature as it is directed against a notice whereby the petitioner has been called for personal hearing before specifled authority.