Judges : G.H.GUTTAL
Kerala Financial Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Recovery Officer - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No.1164 of 1994
Decided On : 06/22/1994
Advocates Appeared :
M. Pathrose Mathai For Petitioner N.N. Sugunapalan For Respondents
Employees' Provident Fund - Recovery of Debts - State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - S.29, S.46-B - The court discussed the conflict between the Corporation's right to recover its debts and the priority of provident fund dues under S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act. It held that the priority granted to the payment and recovery of the amounts due under the Provident Fund Act, and its operation, notwithstanding other laws, is a measure of the legislative urge to ensure that no other authority or law prevents recovery of such dues. The court also emphasized that the charge created by S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act cannot be enforced against the property mortgaged or hypothecated to the Corporation.
Fact of the Case:
M/s. Darpan Electronics (Private) Limited owes Rs. 37,150/- towards its contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund and Rs. 15,95,693/- to the Kerala State Financial Corporation. The Corporation took over the assets of Darpan Electronics, and the Recovery Officer initiated proceedings to recover the provident fund dues. The question was whether the Corporation has the overriding right to recover its debts from the assets of Darpan Electronics, despite the priority of provident fund dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Recovery Officer's proceedings were illegal and quashed them, emphasizing the legislative urge to ensure recovery of provident fund dues and the inability to enforce the charge against the property mortgaged or hypothecated to the Corporation.
Issues: Conflict between the Corporation's right to recover debts and the priority of provident fund dues, the enforceability of the charge against the property held by a transferee for consideration without notice, and the implied repeal of S.29 and S.46-B of the Act by S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The priority granted to the payment and recovery of the amounts due under the Provident Fund Act is a legislative measure to ensure recovery of such dues, and the charge created by S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act cannot be enforced against the property mortgaged or hypothecated to the Corporation. Repeal by implication is not favored by courts, and the court found no implied repeal of S.29 and S.46-B of the Act by S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Recovery Officer's proceedings and allowed the Original Petition without costs.
1. M/s. Darpan Electronics (Private) Limited owes Rs. 37,150/- towards its contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund and Rs. 15,95,693/- to the Kerala Stale Financial Corporation (the Corporation for short). The question for consideration in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is, whether, by virtue of Ss.29 and 46-B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ("the Act" for brevity), the Corporation has the overriding right to recover its debts from the assets of Darpan Electronics, notwithstanding the fact that under S.11(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act ( "The Provident Fund Act" for the sake of brevity), the amount, of provident fund dues is a first charge on. the assets of the employer. The facts giving rise to this question are in paragraphs No. 2 below.
2. On 20-2-1987 Darpan Electronics (Private) Ltd. borrowed Rs. 10.89 lakhs from the Corporation created under the State Financial Corporation Act - a central Act. Darpan Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. mortgaged its immovable properties and hypothecated the movables with the Corporation on 23-2-1987. On 10-10-1991 a sum of Rs. 15,95,693 was due and payable by Darpan Electronics. The Corporation initiated proceedings under S.29 of the Act and on 18-11-1991 all the property of Darpan Electronics were taken over by the Corporation. On 20-12-1993 movables were sold for realisation of the debt due to the Corporation. A sum of Rs. 89,083/- is lying in its account with the South Indian Bank Ltd. the Respondent No. 2.
A sum of Rs. 37,150/- is due from Darpan Electronics towards the employer's contribution to the provident fund. The Respondent No.1 is the Recovery Officer as defined in clause (kb) of S.2 of the Provident Fund Act. On 3-2-1992 the Recovery Officer issued a demand notice in respect of this sum. Eventually on 6-3-1992, the Recovery Officer attached 37 cents of land from Sy. Nos. 1763 and 1784 of Palkulangara Village in Trivandrum District which was mortgaged with the Corporation, by Darpan Electronics.
The Recovery Officer considered that the Corporation, by virtue of its possession of the property of the defaulter was also a defaulter, issued notice dated 16-12-1993 (Ext. R1(g) calling upon the Corporation as to why the amount should not be recovered from it. By order dated 6-1-1994, the Recovery Officer prohibited the South Indian Bank, Trivandrum from transferring the amount of Rs. 89,083/- lying in the account of the Corporation.
3. The nature of the rights claimed by the Corporation and the Recovery Officer may be considered in the light of the relevant provisions of law. The right of the Corporation to take over the assets of its debtor is created by S.29 of the Act. The Corporation shall have the right to:
(i) take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern, as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and
(ii) realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation.
The Legislature, aware that there may be provisions in other laws which may affect the Corporation's right to take over and sell the assets of its debtors, enacted S.46-B which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act, the rules and orders made under it "shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there with contained in any other law for the time being in
force".
4. The Provident Fund Act was enacted in 1952 a year later than the Act. Under S.8-G of the Provident Fund Act the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act and Incometax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 shall apply as if the said provisions and the rules, referred to the arrears of the amount of provident fund contributions instead of to the income tax. The Respondent No.1 derives his power to recover the arrears of contribution from Darpan Electronics, from S.8-G and S.11(2) of the Provident Fund Act read with the rules in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.