Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and a bridge loan of Rs.3,52,000/- from the Kerala Financial Corporation (for short "KFC"). According to the appellant, the term loan was availed on 2.2.1987 and the bridge loan on 18.3.1988, when she was not a member of the Board of 

- 2 -

Directors of the Company. Since the Company defaulted to pay the amounts due under the loan agreements, the 2nd respondent KFC took over the factory run by the Company under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, in 1991. In March, 1994, the properties of the Company were auctioned for an amount of Rs.18,10,000/-. Since the amount so raised by auction was not sufficient to wipe off the liability of the KFC, revenue recovery proceedings were taken against the appellant, on the ground that she was a guarantor for the said loans. There is some dispute regarding the date of service of notice by affixture. But, it is common ground that the same was served by affixture in 1995, at the last known address of the appellant. The appellant owned a landed property with a building thereon in Kozhikode district. That property was sold by her to a third party by sale deeds dated 3.9.1995, 2.10.1995 and 4.10.1995. The revenue recovery officials took steps against the property covered by those sale deeds, ignoring the sale made to the third party. In that context, motion was made before this Court and as per the direction of this Court, Ext.P9 order was passed by 

- 3 -

the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), KFC, Kozhikode. The said officer decided to ignore the sale deeds, for the reason that the transfer was made after the notice of default was served on the appellant. Pursuant to Ext.P9, notice of attachment under Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act was served as per Ext.P10. In the above context, the Original Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P9 and P10. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition, taking the view that since the property was sold by the appellant after the initiation of the Revenue Recovery proceedings, by virtue of Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act read with Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transaction was invalid. Therefore, the Original Petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred.

3. We heard the learned senior counsel Sri.K.P.Dandapani for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent KFC. We also heard the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. The learned senior counsel mainly raised two points before us. The first point was that in 

- 4 -

view of the interpretation given to Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as"the Act"), the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked. It is brought to our notice that the Apex Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation [(2003)2 SCC 455] held that for recovery of moneys due to the U.P. Financial Corporation, the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 cannot be invoked, as the said Act is not specifically mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act. Going by the said reasoning, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of specific saving of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the provisions of the same cannot be pressed into service, to recover the amounts due to the 2nd respondent. The second point urged by the learned senior counsel was that the loan was barred by limitation and therefore, a time barred debt cannot be recovered invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. In support of that submission, reliance was placed on the decision in State of 

- 11 -

Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue."

Going by the above provision, any amount due to the KFC can be recovered, in the same manner, as recovering arrears of land revenue. Arrears of land revenue are recoverable under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Since the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, including Section 32G, are not affected by the provisions of the Act, we find nothing illegal in the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, to recover the amounts due to it. A decision is an authority for what it decides and not what logically flows from it. So, in the face of Section 32G, the decision in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. (supra) cannot be pressed into service, to contend that the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act cannot be invoked, to recover the amounts due to the KFC. This view taken by us finds support from the decision in Usman v. Kerala Financial Corporation [2007(2) KLT 604], wherein a Division Bench of this Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge in