Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—Questions of fact and law involved in both the writ petitions are common in nature hence, these are being disposed of by this common judgement. However, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36803 of 2007 is the leading case.

2. By means of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the recovery certificate/citations dated 27.7.2007 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition).

3. In short, the facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are that the first writ petitioner M/s Mak Plastic (P) Ltd., a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), is the principal borrower and the second writ petitioner, Krishna Kumar Maheshwari stood guarantor to the said loan being Director of the Company at the relevant time, although subsequently he resigned from the directorship.

4. Admittedly, the Company was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 28.00 lacs by the U.P. State Financial Corporation, out of which it availed only Rs. 23.00 lacs, but could not repay the same. Therefore, on the request of the petitioners, one time settlement was made whereafter an amount of Rs. 14.24 lacs was deposited. Ultimately, the balance loan amount could not be paid back by the petitioners, consequently impugned recovery certificate/citation has been issued for recovery of an amount along with interest totalling to Rs. 87,96,942.26.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned recovery sought to be made under Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (for short ‘the U.P. Act, 1972’) is barred by Section 34 (2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Debt Recovery Act, 1993’). Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the liability is admitted by the petitioners and to facilitate the repayment of the loan amount, one time settlement was made on their request but that too was not complied with, therefore, the equity does not lie in favour of petitioners and they are not entitled to any relief from this Court.

6. In the course of arguments, we have come across two judgments one is Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, (2003) 2 SCC 455 and the other is M/s Paliwal Glass Works and others v. State of U.P. and others (unreported judgment dated 21st September, 2005, in Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2005), when the earlier judgment is saying that for the purpose of recovery, apart from Debt Recovery Act, 1993, the other Act is also available in the State of U.P. i.e. the U.P. Act, 1972, therefore, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, either of the Acts can be made applicable but in the later judgment i.e. M/s Paliwal Glass Works (supra) a parallel Bench of the apex Court has opined that earlier judgment i.e. Unique Butyle (supra) requires reconsideration because the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal as per the Debt Recovery Act, 1993 is exclusive in nature. Thereafter, the matters were forwarded to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to pass an appropriate order and on the basis of such order, larger Bench was formed and the matter is pending for consideration by such Bench. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed before this Court, the status report of the Supreme Court matter only up to 1st May, 2007. Thereafter, the Court, through its computer section obtained informations time to time.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the pivotal question which arises for determination by this Court in the instant case is as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 32-G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Corporation Act, 1951’), the moneys due to the Financial Corporations (beyond Rs. 10 lacs) can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue; only under the provisions of Debt Recovery Act, 1993 or in alternat