Uttarakhand High Court
Jagnnath Patra vs Managing Director U.P.Financial ... on 5 September, 2017
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
WPMS No. 1965 of 2012 Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Heard.
The question raised in this petition is no more res integra, in view of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2003 (2) SCC 455, "Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and other". Paragraph No.9 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"9. Section 34 of the Act consists of two parts. Sub-section (1) deals with the overriding effect of the Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act. Sub-section (1) itself makes an exception as regards matters covered by sub-section (2). The U.P. Act is not mentioned therein. The mode of recovery of debt under the U.P. Act is not saved under the said provision i.e. sub-section (2) which is of considerable importance so far as the present case is concerned. Even a bare reading therein makes it clear that it is intended to be in addition to and not in derogation of certain statutes; one of which is the Financial Act. In other words, a bank or a financial institution has the option or choice to proceed either under the Act or under the modes of recovery permissible under the Financial Act. To that extent, the High Court's conclusions quoted above were correct. Where the High Court went wrong is by holding that the proceedings under the U.P. Act were permissible. The U.P. Act deals with separate modes of recovery and such proceedings are not relatable to proceedings under the Financial Act. Accordingly, in view of definite law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme in the judgment, cited hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned Annexure No.1 dated 09.07.2012 and Annexure No.2 dated 09.09.2012 are quashed and set-aside.
However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.) 05.09.2017 NISHANT