9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm loan that had been granted by the Corporation (Respondent No. 1) in favour of respondent No. 2 for setting up of some Industrial Unit. As the loanee did not pay up the instalment dues, the Corporation served the notice on the petitioner (Annexure-E) calling upon him to clear the demanded dues with interest failing which the properties mortgaged by the petitioner in favour of Corporation should be taken over, it is against this action of the Corporation, the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this writ. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They are served and represented so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, they are principal borrower and happens to be the son of petitioner. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air ( supra ) wherein identical question was raised. The Division Bench of the High Court presided over by Justice G.B. Patnaik (as his Lordship then was the Judge of Orissa High Court and later became former Chief justice of India) speaking for the Bench expressly overruled the submission of writ petitioner and held as follows : "4. In view of the rival stands of the parties, the sole question that arises for consideration is whether a guarantor s property which had been mortgaged with the Corporation can be taken possession under section 29 of the Act when the loanee did not pay up the loan amount. To appreciate the contention raised, it would be appropriate to extract section 29(1) of the Act : Where any industrial concern, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Allahabad High Court after analyzing the provisions contained in sections 29, 31 and 32 of the Act came to hold that speedy remedy contained in section 31 of the Act is available not against the surety but against the borrower only. The aforesaid conclusion was based on reading of sections 31 and 32 of the Act together more particularly sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act. But the said conclusion, in our considered opinion, will not apply to an action under section 29 of the Act. In fact, in the aforesaid decision, their Lordships also observed that there is no conflict between the two provisions contained in sections 29 and 31 inasmuch as the right of the Corporation under section 29 in general to proceed against the mortgage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of the High Court, no more discussion is needed to dismiss the petition and uphold the impugned action proposed by the Corporation against the petitioner s property. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then complained that Corporation should have first proceeded against the respondent No. 2 s property and then for residue, they should have proceeded against the guarantor. The submission has no merit. Once, it is held that section 29 of the Act can be invoked against both the properties then it is the choice of the Corporation as to against which property they intend to proceed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any term in the agreement which prohibits or in any matter restrict the rights of the Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
