- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 the specified authority of respondent No. 1 to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of persons from whom recovery of dues is to be recovered given in recovery certificate dated 24.6.2008 and for issuance of a further direction commanding the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner in terms of the said recovery certificate (Annexure P-1). The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is resident of Mumbai aged about 67 years of age and is moving this Court through his special power of attorney Ms. Maya Kapil. The petitioner was a Director of M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd. for the period from 16.3.1992 to 11.10.1996. Respondent No. 1-Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the PSIDC") had granted loan to the said company around 1988 and the repayment of Rs. 48.25 lacs was guaranteed by the then promoters and guarantors, vide deed of guarantee dated 4.8.1988 executed by them, namely, Dr. H.P.S. Chawla, Sri. Harbhajan Singh Chawla and Mr. Jaspal Singh Chawla. The loan was not paid by the company and its assets were sold in the year 2000 and since there was a debt repayable by M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd., the PSIDC made an application for recovery of Rs. 54.38 lacs + interest as on 1.8.2004 before the specified authority-respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the recovery certificate (Annexure P-1) dated 24.6.2008 under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1951 Act") was issued and the amount was declared to be recoverable from the guarantors as per guarantee deed dated 4.8.1988. The police and revenue officials of Maharashtra were enforcing the recovery certificate and the copy of the recovery certificate had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bombay. The petitioner came to now about the recovery matter only when the police approached him and he could only get a handwritten copy of the recovery certificate dated 24.6.2008 and representations dated 4.12.2008 and 22.12.2008 were sent for withdrawal for recovery demand since the liability could not be fastened upon him. The petitioner was inducted in M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd. on 16.3.1992 and resigned on 11.10.1996 and he could not be held responsible for the loan taken vide deed of guarantee dated 4.8.1988 as he was not executor, administrator or legal heir of guarantors. Neither any notice had been given to him before or after sale of assets in 2000 and nor any notice was served upon him when the liability was determined nor any notice was served upon him when the proceedings were conducted before the specified authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed for the above mentioned relief.
(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the PSIDC, the objection was taken that the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by the specified authority under Section 32G of the 1951 Act and a sum of Rs. 43.25 lacs had been disbursed in terms of the loan agreement dated 4.8.1988 and M/s. Finorg Chemicals Ltd. defaulted in the repayment of the loan amount and, therefore, an application under Section 32G of the 1953 Act was filed. It was submitted that the legal notice was issued to the petitioner on the correct address before filing the application under Section 32G of the 1951 Act and even after filing the application, respondent No. 2 issued a registered letter to the petitioner being Director of the company. Inspite of that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before respondent No. 2 and public notice had also been issued and published on 21.4.2005 and 22.4.2005 respectively. The petitioner failed to appear before the specified authority and was proceeded against exparte on 11.5.2005 by respondent No. 2. The plea taken by the promoters was factually incorrect and the petitioner never informed the respondents that he had resigned from the company and no document was given to the respondent regarding the resignation of the petitioner from the company. The petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company and when the petitioner joined the company in the year 1992 as Director, he was fully aware about the liabilities of the company towards respondent No. 1. The resignation in Form No. 32 placed on record by the petitioner was never given to the answering respondent and petitioner be put to strict proof thereof. The recovery certificate was issued on 24.6.2008 and the amount was to be recovered against the respondents whose names are mentioned in the recovery certificate. The said recovery certificate had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Mumbai for recovering the amount and revenue officials were to recover the amount as per law. The petitioner being fully aware about the pendency of the application under Section 32G of the 1951 Act, was also aware about the issuance of the recovery certificate. The letter dated 22.12.2008 was duly received and replied by the respondent and the petitioner being Director of the company could not absolve himself by taking a plea that he had resigned from the company. The petitioner had failed to appear before the specified authority and never submitted any document. The resignation as a Director of the company did not absolve his liability towards the company.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that deed of guarantee dated 4.8.1988 was executed by the promoters of the company, namely, Dr. H.P.S. Chawla, Sri. Harbhajan Singh Chawla and Mr. Jaspal Singh Chawla and the petitioner was not the signatory to the guarantee deed and therefore, no recovery could be effected from the petitioner on the basis of the said guarantee deed. The inclusion of the petitioner's name in the recovery certificate was without any basis.;