VIVEK SARIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray that the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 be declared ultra vires the Constitution and that the demand notice dated February 26, 1997 by which the Haryana Financial Corporation has called upon the petitioners to buy back the two hundred thousand equity shares, be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly notices.

(2.) M/s. Apex Multitech Limited is a Public Limited Company. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its Directors. The Company has two Units in the Industrial area, Phase-II, Panchkula. The Company and the Haryana Financial Corporation had entered into certain financial transactions. For the decision of the controversy involved in the present case, it would suffice to notice that on August 13, 1996, the Haryana Financial Corporation issued a recall notice to the Company for an amount of Rs. 2,18,44,424/- with interest. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure P.11 with this writ petition. The company was called upon to immediately pay the amount failing which it was said that the unit will be taken over for recovery of dues under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. The company submitted a reply. On August 30, 1996, the Corporation informed the company that it was no longer possible for it to wait for the payment of the amount. Consequently, action was taken under S. 29 of the 1951 Act. The Company was called upon to hand over possession on September 6, 1996. A copy of the letter dated August 30, 1996 has been produced as Annexure P.13 with the writ petition. It is alleged that on receipt of this order, "the petitioner challenged. . . . . . . action of the respondent-Corporation through a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court under C.W.P. No. 13673 of 1996. . . . ." Vide order dated October 18, 1996, the writ petition was admitted. The respondent-Corporation was, however, restrained from selling or auctioning the Unit. This writ petition is still pending.

(3.) On February 26, 1997, the respondent-Corporation addressed a communication to petitioner No. 1 calling upon him