9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-3-2001 for recovery of Rs. 52,22,330 issued at the instance of respondent No. 1-Central Bank of India under section 3 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short "M.P. Adhiniyam"), read with rule 5 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988 (for short "M.P. Niyam"). 3. In view of the short legal controversy sought to be raised by the parties in this writ, it is really not necessary to narrate the facts in detail except which are relevant for the disposal of writs. 4. The respondent No. 1-a Nationalised Bank has advanced a loan (cash credit facility) to respondent No. 3-a Private Limited Company. The petitioner has stood as guarantor for due discharge of the loan advanced to respondent No. 3 and has accordingly executed guarantee deeds in favour of respondent-Bank. On 22-3-2001 (Annexure P-1) impugned Certificate of Recovery towards outstanding loan amount of Rs. 52,22,330 and interest under the M.P. Adhiniyam, read with M.P. Niyam was issued at the instance of respondent No. 1 calling upon the petitioner as also the respondent No. 3 to pay the said amount as arrears of land revenue by 30-3-2002 for their alleged failure to com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly brought to the notice of this Court contending that issue involved in this writ now stands fully answered and decided in favour of petitioner. In other words, the submission obviously was that issue now no longer remains res integra and stands answered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Unique Butyle, supra in petitioner s favour. This in substance, was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned demand mainly relied on a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge (Justice Arun Mishra) in the case of M.L. Chorisa v. Tehsildar Balaghat [2002] 3 MP LJ 134 (Annexure R-1) and contended that similar demand having been upheld in the case of M.L. Chorisa, the same be followed for dismissing this writ as also all other writs. This in substance was the submission. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and quash the impugned demand. 8. In my considered opinion, the issue involved in the writ is squarely covered by the latest decision of Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and, hence, it cannot be resorted to for making recovery by the Financial Institution from their borrower. This is what their Lordships held in paras 8 and 9: "Para 8 - Allahabad Bank s case (supra) did not specifically deal with section 34(2) of the Act. However, certain observations made in the said judgment are of relevance. 20. We shall refer to sections 17 and 18 in Chapter III of the RDB Act which deal with adjudication of the debt: 17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. 18. Bar of jurisdiction. On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than the Act. Sub-section (1) itself makes an exception as regards matters covered by sub-section (2). The U.P. Act is not mentioned therein. The mode of recovery of debt under the U.P. Act is not saved under the said provision i.e. sub-section (2) which is of considerable importance so far as the present case is concerned. Even a bare reading therein makes it clear that it is intended to be in addition to and not in derogation of certain statutes, one of which is the Financial Act. In other words, a Bank or Financial Institution has the option or choice to proceed either under the Act or under the modes of recovery permissible under the Financial Act. To that extent, the High Court s conclusions quoted above were correct. Where the High Court went wrong is by holding that proceedings under the U.P. Act were permissible. U.P. Act deals with separate modes of recovery and such proceedings are not relatable to proceedings under the Financial Act." 9. Eventually in para 16 their Lordships allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned R.R.C. by holding as under: "Para 16 - The impugned order is set aside and the proceedings under the U.P. Act are quashed. It shall be, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedence. With respect, I may observe that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of M.L. Chorisa ( supra ) cannot be held to be holding the field when the learned Single Judge proceeded to uphold the identical demand because it was rendered without taking into consideration the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Allahabad Bank ( supra ) which had a material bearing over the controversy and in any event, the later decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P.) Ltd. ( supra ) on 20-12-2002 results in expressly overruling the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of M.L. Chorisa . Accordingly and in view of this well-settled principle of law of precedents, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent in M.L. Chorisa s case is entirely misplaced. 12. Once, this court comes to a conclusion that the issue is covered by the decision of Supreme Court then no more discussion is called for or can be permitted. Indeed, no attempt was made or rather could be made by the respondent to distinguish the view of Supreme Court because of the obvious reasons that the U.P. Act and M.P. Adhiniyam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
