JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Whether the action of the Creditor for recovering the dues against the guarantor under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation, 1951 ( hereinafter referred to as the SFC Act) is within the period of limitation or not? is the issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal.

2. Creditors' action in initiating such proceedings stands affirmed by the learned Single Judge. His opinion rendered in terms of the impugned judgment dated 2nd December, 2009 in CWJC No.10565 of 2008 titled as Hari Narayan Sinha Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. is a subject matter of consideration in the present appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

3. We need not go into the extent or scope of power in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Letter Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna, for it not to be an issue in question.

4. We also need not go into the scope of an inquiry or the applicability of the provisions of Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation, 1951, for petitioner/appellant does not lay any challenge to the same, perhaps rightly so, given the discussions and the view taken by the learned Single Judge, based on the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Delhi Financial Corporation V. Rajiv Anand, (2004) 11 SCC 625.

5. Here only we may add that the said view of the Apex Court, dealing with intent, purport and scope of the said Section stands reaffirmed and reiterated in Karnataka State Financial Corpn. v. N. Narasimahaiah, (2008) 5 SCC 176, and Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230.

6. The limited point urged before us, is such action of the Creditor in initiating the proceedings, to be barred by law of limitation.

7. In support of his contention, Shri Manik Vedsen, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee Versus Kalu Ram and another, (1976) 3 SCC 407 (two-Judge Bench); State of Kerala and others Versus V.R. Kalliyanikutty and another, (1999) 3 SCC 657(three-Judge Bench); and Syndicate Bank Versus Channaveerappa Beleri and others, (2006) 11 SCC 506 (two-Judge Bench).

8. Opposing the appeal, Shri Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents seeks reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Bhandari Versus Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, (2015) 5 SCC 518 (two-Judge Bench), and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagdish Rai v. Haryana Financial Corporation, AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 50.

9. The facts, which are not in dispute are as under:

10. Petitioner Hari Narayan Sinha, promoted a Company, duly registered under the Companies Act, by the name Patna Rolling Mills (P) Limited (referred to as the Company), of which he was the Director. For creating infrastructure, certain credit facilities by way of a loan were availed by the Company from certain financial institutions, including, Bihar State Financial Corporation and Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation, (in brief referred to as BSFC and BICICO respectively). It was a consortium of BSFC and BICICO which extended the credit facilities, about which the properties and the assets of the Company stood mortgaged. The charges of the institutions ran pari-passu over the mortgaged property of the Company. The petitioner stood guarantor against such loans taken by the Company. On 7th January, 1987, the Financial Institution recalled the loan amount and in default thereof, initiated proceedings as per law. On 28th June, 1996, the BICICO, the co-financer (consortium partner) took over possession of the assets of the Company and sold it on th March, 2002, with the possession handed over to the successful bidder on 16th March, 2002.

11. Challenging such sale, the Company of which the present petitioner was a promoter and a Director, initiated several proceedings which attained f