JAGANNATH TRADING COMPANY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three writ petitions similar facts and identical -questions of law having involved the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) C.W.J.C. No. 1857 of 1992 (R) the petitioners No. 1 Shree Jagannath Trading Co. is a firm, the sole proprietor of which is the petitioner No. 2, Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta. For recovery of the out-standing dues payable to the Respondent No. 1 (Union Bank of India), in respect of cash credit account, a proceeding under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was initiated against the petitioners for recovery of the amount, and certificate case No. 23 (UBI) of 1991-92 has been registered in the court of Respondent No. 3, the Certificate Officer. After receipt of the notice, the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the Act and thereafter the Certificate Officer duly disposed of the objection after hearing the petitioners. The petitioners have thereafter approached this Court in the writ petitions. In C.W.J.C. No. 2050 of 1992 (R), the petitioner No. 1 M/S. Gupta Bhandar is a Hindu Undivided Family Firm and petitioner No. 2 Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta is the Karta and Manager of the petitioner No. 1. A proceeding under the provision of the Act was initiated for realisation of the out-standing dues payable to Respondent-Bank in respect of cash credit account against the petitioner and certificate case No. 22 (UBI) of 1991-92 has been registered in the court of the Respondent No. 3, the Certificate officer. The petitioners after receipt of the notice filed objection under Section 9 of the Act and the Certificate Officer after hearing the petitioners duly disposed of the objection.The petitioners have, thereafter, approached this Court, in the writ petition. In C.W.J.C. No. 1765 of 1992 (R), the petitioner No. 1, M/S. Jain Trading Company is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the petitioner No. 1. A proceeding under the provisions of the Act for recovery of the outstanding dues payable to the Respondent Union Bank of India in respect of the cash credit facilities, extended by the Respondent-Bank, was initiated against the petitioners and Certificate Case No. 21 (UBI) of 1991-92 has been registered in the court of the Certificate Officer. In response to the notice, the petitioners filed objection and after the disposal thereof by the Certificate Officer, the petitioners have approached this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners mainly questioned the validity of the provisions of the Bihar Act 4 of 1974, by which, the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act was amended and any money payable to the State Bank of India and other banks specified therein was included within the list of Public Demands set out in Schedule 1 of the Act, on the ground of lack of legislative competence of the State of Bihar. On the said question, a number of petitions were transferred to the Apex Court, and the Apex Court by judgment and order dated 11.7.1994 passed in Transfer Case No. 4 of 1989 (Harish Tara Refractories Pvt. Ltd. and others) held that the Amendment Act 4 of 1974 by which any money payable to the State Bank of India and other banks, specified therein were included within the list of Public Demand set out in Schedule I of the Act was not ultra-vires the Constitution and was within the legislative competence of the State of Bihar. The petitioners thereafter by way of supplementary affidavits challenged the proceedings of certificate cases, contending that: (i) the requisitions were not made in accordance with the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act and prescribed form, (ii) no court fee in the eye of law was paid, (iii) Certificate Officer signed the demand certificates in the prescribed form No. 1 without application of mind and not in accordance with the provision of Section 6 of the Act, and (iv) the objections filed by the petitioners were arbitrarily disposed of without any application of mind by the Respondent No. 3. The respondent-Bank in the counter-affidavit denied the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners.