G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) THE third respondent-m/s. Devi sugars limited (as at annexure-a), pledged the sugar and has availed cash credit facility from the petitioner-state bank of mysore to the extent of Rs. 20 crores. The said third respondent has also fallen in arrears in the matter of payment of provident fund contributions under the employees' provident funds and miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 ('act', for short ). Respondents 1 and 2, namely, the provident fund commissioner and the recovery officer, therefore proceeded to attach the sugar of the third respondent so pledged to the petitioner in the process of recovering the provident fund contributions. In this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner-bank urges that it has got priority over the claim of respondents 1 and 2 under the act. The bank contends that the attachment of the godowns wherein the sugar bags are there, effected by respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the said provident fund arrears, is illegal. In this writ petition, it seeks a direction in that regard.

( 2 ) SRI hari krishna s. Holla, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, relying upon Section 11 (2) of the ACT urges that respondents 1 and 2 have prior claim in respect of the provident fund contributions, and, as such, the amounts due to them has to take precedence over the claim of the petitioner-bank notwithstanding the pledge referred to earlier. Sri holla refers to Section 88 of the act. It enables the recovery officer to proceed to recover the amounts due under the ACT by attachment and sale of the property of the establishment. Sri holla urges that the third respondent pledged to the petitioner-bank its property, and, that by virtue of Section 11 (2) of the act, first respondent's claim having priority over that of the petitioner, the second respondent-recovery officer under Section 8-b of the ACT is entitled to proceed against the said property of the third respondent-establishment in the hands of the petitioner. Sri holla urges further that even as per annexure-a, there is no schedule mentioned therein, and as such, there is no proper document with regard to the pledge.

( 3 ) THE question as to whether, for want of schedule, the document at Annexure-A is an invalid document, is to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned in an appropriate civil proceeding. I will proceed on the footing that the sugar of the third respondent is pledged to the petitioner-state bank in respect of availing cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 20 crores.

( 4 ) SRI s. g. bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that the second respondent should proceed under Section 8-b as against the property of the third respondent-establishment, and that, after the pledge, the sugar concerned ceases to be the property of the establishment, and, as such, the priority contemplated under Section 11 (2) of the ACT has no application to the facts of the case in respect of the property which has ceased to be the property of the establishment.

( 5 ) SECTION 11 (2) of the ACT inter alia provides that if any amount is due from the employer, whether in respect of the employees' contribution deducted from the wages of the employees, or the employer's contribution, the amounts so due shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment, and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be paid in priority to all other debts. There is no doubt at all that if the sugar pledged to the petitioner-bank can be called the asset of the third respondent, then, Section 11 (2) gives priority to the amounts due to the first respondent. Section 8-b of the ACT also inter alia provides for the recovery officer to attach and sell movable or immovable property of the establishment. Here again, if the sugar pledged can be called the property of the third respondent-establishment, then, Section 8-b would come into play. The question that, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document