S.N. Variava, J. - (1.) These Appeals are against the Order of the Allahabad High Court dated 01.09.1997 by which Appellants Writ Petition has been dismissed and the Order dated 06.11.1997 by which the Review Petition has been dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows. The 1st Respondent had advanced monies to the 4th Respondent. The Appellant stood guarantor in respect of the said loan as at that time he was a Director of the 4th Respondent-Company. By the Writ Petition, the Appellant challenged the Recovery Notice issued against him under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition and the Review Petition.
(3.) Mr. Mohta submitted that the Central Government has issued a Notification specifying 1st Respondent-Corporation as a Financial Institution within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(h) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Debt Recovery Act"). He submitted that such an Institution can only proceed in the manner laid down in the Debt Recovery Act. He submitted that it is not open to give a go-by to the provision of the Debt Recovery Act and use the machinery under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the "U.P. Act"). For this reason the Notice is bad and requires to be quashed. In support of his submission, he relied upon the case in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corporation and Ors. (2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 666 . In this case, it has been held that a Financial Institution within the meaning of that term in the Debt Recovery Act cannot proceed under the U. P. Act.;