- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery certificate for Rs. 10. 28,66. 063/ -. One of the grounds, taken by the petitioner who is guarantor of the loan, is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as recovery certificate was issued on 20-6-2002. On the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned recovery certificate in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the loan was taken by Vijay Shree Chemical (India) Ltd. to which petitioner was guarantor. It is well settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the company has become a sick. The petitioner has relied on Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. We have already held in the case of Moti Prasad Agarwal v. Prabandh Nideshak Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation U. P. and others, decided on 16-8-2002, in writ petition No. 27939 of 2002 that Section 22 of the Act does not provide the staying recovery against a guarantor, unless it is in pursuance of a suit. In the present case there was no suit. In view of the decision of this Court in Moti Prasad Agarwal's case (supra) the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in a similar situation, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shri Ballabh Glass Works Ltd. , reported in 1990 Vol. 2 UPLBEC 885, has quashed the proceeding for the recovery against the company. We have carefully perused the said decision and find it distinguishable. In that case the recovery was not against the guarantor. Hence that decision has no application. It may be noted that Section 22 makes a distinction between the principal debtor and the guarantor. As regards the latter, Section 22 says that no suit for recovery will be against him. Hence, if the recovery against a guarantor is not in pursuance of suit, the recovery is not stayed by Section 22.
(3.) MOREOVER, writ is issued when both Law and equity are in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner only shows violation of Law but there is no equity in his favour a writ need not be issued. In the present case neither Law nor equity is in favour of the petitioner. He does not deny being guarantor of the loan, and he is liable. The writ petition has no force and hence it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;