ASHOK MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on September 26,2006

ASHOK MAHAJAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GULAB CHAND KESARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SHARDA VS. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
VALSAMMA VARGHESE VS. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(KER)-2009-6-134] [REFERRED TO]
BANSHILAL ALIAS NIVRUTTI PANDIT VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AHMEDNAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KISHORE TIWARI VS. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2009-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
JALIL AHMAD ANSARI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-177] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL JAIN VS. PRADESHIYA INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-167] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-207] [REFERRED TO]
SOBRAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SARAT CHANDRA ACHARYA VS. BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR KHAN VS. SOMNATH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) for quashing the recovery certificate dated 24.4.2002 issued by the respondents 1 and 2.
(3.)Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows: One M/s. Denin Leathers Limited (hereinafter referred to as the borrower) had taken term loan of Rs. 40 lacs from Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, Uttar Pradesh Limited (in short PICUP) and had mortgaged its immovable properties to secure the loan. Initially the borrower had commenced its business as a private limited company in 1979 but subsequently in the year 1995 it was converted to a Public Limited Company. While the borrower becomes a public limited company, appellants name was included as a Director. On 7.7.1998 a recovery certificate was issued in respect of one Sanjay Mahajan who was one of the guarantors in respect of the loan. According to the appellant due to continued losses the financial condition of the company was bad and added to the financial problems in the year 1999 because of a devastating fire, assets of the company were destroyed. On 2.2.2002 recovery certificate was issued against the guarantors, namely, Keshav Ram Mahajan, Sanjay Mahajan and Smt. Juli Mahajan. On 25.7.2002 the house and household articles of the appellant were attached by the District Authorities by an order to the effect that dues amounted to nearly Rs.1.24 crores plus interest plus 10% collection charges. Appellant made a representation to the authorities stating that he was not a guarantor though coercive steps were taken against him. The appellant was arrested on 24.11.2002. The recovery certificate was issued on 24.4.2002, as the appellant subsequently learnt in the name of the appellant as well as Keshav Mahajan, Ajay Mahajan and Sanjay Mahajan. Auction proceedings in respect of property took place on 21.4.2003 under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues Act) 1972 (in short the Act). The date for fresh auction was fixed on 22.5.2003 under Section 4 of the Act as well as under several other statutes. Appellant filed the writ petition on the ground that under the Act the recovery could not have been made. The High Court with reference to terms of guarantee rejected the stand and held that the Collector was entitled to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 279(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 (in short the Zamindari Act).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.