- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed questioning the legality of the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioners with a prayer to quash the recovery citations, dated 11.12.2004, issued to the petitioners on the ground that the recovery proceedings are without jurisdiction and reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Pawan Kumar Jain v. PICUP and Ors., (2004) 6 JT 305.
(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 1 to 3 were the Directors of the Company and had also executed personal guarantee for the loan amount in favour of respondent No. 3. The said petitioners continued as Directors. Petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 are the sons of the persons who were either the Directors of the Company and some have also executed personal guarantee along with the other Directors in favour of respondent No. 3. Along with the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.12.2004, the petitioners have filed a copy of the hypothecation deed and Photostat copy of the personal guarantee executed by five persons including the petitioner Nos. 1 to On behalf of the respondents an affidavit has been filed bringing on the record the letter/communication sent by the respondent No. 3 to the Collector intimating the Collector that the certificate of recovery issued in the year 2001 had been wrongly returned by the Collector on an erroneous assumption and, as such, the said certificate was being redirected for being executed. The letter clearly discloses that the certificate of recovery had been issued on 18.9.2001. The aforesaid fact of the certificate of recovery having been issued in the year 2001 has neither been stated nor disclosed either in the writ petition filed by the petitioners or in the supplementary affidavit referred to herein earlier. 3. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Chaudhary on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
(3.) SRI Sudhir Chandra has made three principal submissions on behalf of the petitioners. The first submission is that since the company is already registered with BIFR under the provisions of Sick Industrial Company Special Provision Act, 1985, therefore, no proceeding for recovery could have been initiated against the petitioner. Quoting further, Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the SICA Act 1985, Sri Sudhir Chandra has submitted that even otherwise the recovery could not have been made without complying with the procedure and without taking into account the factors contemplated under Section 19 of the said Act.;