Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 247
2004(1) JLJ 158
A.M. Sapre, J.
Santosh v. Central Bank of India and others
W.P. No. 851 of 2002; Decided on 13.2.2003.
Headnote:(1) Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (M.P.) -- Ss. 3 and 2(b) -- M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988 -- R. 5 -- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial1nstitutions Act, 1993 -- S. 34(1) and 34(2) -- S. 34(1) of 1993 Act contains an overriding provision -- M.P. Adhiniyam not mentioned in S. 34(2) of 1993 Act -- no recovery can be made under S. 3 of the M.P. Adhiniyam.
By filing the writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the Revenue Recovery Certificate (Demand) dated 22.3.2001, for recovery of Rs. 52,22,330/- issued at the instance of respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India under section 3 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 read with rule 5 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988. [Para 2
Held: In fact, section 3 of D.P. Act which fell for interpretation in aforesaid case before the Supreme Court is so identically worded with that of section 3 of M.P. Adhiniyam that there is no room for any distinction between the two provisions. As a necessary corollary, if no demand could be raised under section 3 of V.P. Act by any Banking Company, then no such demand could as well as be raised under section 3 of M.P. Adhiniyam by or at the instance of any Banking Company as defined under section 2(b) of M.P. Adhiniyam. It is for the reason that section 34(2) of the R.D.B. Act does not specify M.P. Adhiniyam alongwith other Acts which are specifically mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 34. In other words, section 34(2) of R.D.B. Act, which is in the nature of saving of an action, does not include within its fold the action taken under M.P. Adhiniyam and hence, any action taken under the M.P. Adhiniyam will not be saved. It will be thus hit by section 34(1) of R.D.B. Act which has overriding effect on all actions taken under any other Acts. 2003(1) Supreme 333 and (2000)4 SCC 406 followed. 2002(II) MPWN 173 held per incuriam. [Paras 10 & 11
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 141 -- High Court is bound to follow the law laid down by Supreme Court n decision of High Court rendered without considering the law laid down by Supreme Court -is not a binding precedence.
(3) Precedent -- decision of High Court without considering Supreme Court decision -- is per incuriam -- not binding as precedence.
Firstly, what is binding on this Court is the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, if the law laid down by the High Court is in conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and/or if, the view taken by the High Court is rendered without taking into consideration the law already laid down by the Supreme Court then, in such eventuality, the view taken by the High Court is held !o be per incuriam. It is not then a binding precedence. With respect, I may observe that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of ML Chaurasia [(2002(II) MPWN 173] cannot be held to be holding the field when the learned Single Judge proceeded to uphold the identical demand, because it was rendered without taking into consideration the decision of Supreme Court. 2003(1) Supreme 333 and (2000) 4 SCC 406 followed. 2002(II) MPWN 173 held per incuriam. [Para 11
¼1½ yksd /ku ¼‘kks/; jkf‘k;ksa dh olwyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1987 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 3 vkSj 2¼[k½ && e-iz- yksd /ku ¼‘kks/; jkf‘k;ksa dh olwyh½ fu;e] 1988 && fu;e 5 && cSad vkSj foÙkh; laLFkkvksa dks ‘kks/; _.k dh olwyh vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 34¼1½ rFkk 34¼2½ && 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼1½ esa v/;kjksgh mica/k varfoZ"V gS && 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ esa e-iz- vf/kfu;e mfYyf[kr ugah && e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu olwyh ugha dh tk ldrhA
Hkkjr dh lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 vkSj 227 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dj ds ;kph us e-iz- yksd /ku ¼‘kks/; jkf‘k;ksa dh olwyh½ fu;e] 1998 ds fu;e 5 ds lkFk ifBr e-iz- yksd /ku ¼‘kks/; jkf‘k;ksa dh olwyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1987 dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 lsaVªy cSad vkQ bafM;k ds dgus ij #- 52]22]330@& dh olwyh ds fy, tkjh jktLo olwyh izek.ki= ¼ek¡x½ dh fof/kekU;rk vkSj vkSfpR; dks pqukSrh nh gSA ¿ iSjk 2À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % okLro esa m-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 dh ‘‘kCnkoyh] ftldk mi;qZDr ekeys esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fuoZpu fd;k x;k Fkk] e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds brus laiw.kZ :i ls ln`‘k gS fd nksuksa mica/kksa esa izHksn djus dh dksbZ xqatkb‘k ugha gSA vko‘;d ifj.kkeLo:i] ;fn m-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu fdlh cSaddkjh daiuh }kjk ek¡x ugha dh tk ldrh Fkh rks e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3 ds v/khu Hkh e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼[k½ esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh cSaddkjh daiuh }kjk ;k mldh vksj ls ,slh ek¡x ugha dh tk ldrhA ;g bl dkj.k gS fd 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ esa mu vU; vf/kfu;eksa ds lkFk e-iz- vf/kfu;e fofufnZ"V ugha gS tks /kkjk 34 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"Vr% mfYyf[kr gSA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ esa tks dkjZokbZ dh O;ko`fÙk dh izd`fr dh gS] e-iz- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼2½ esa tks dkjZokbZ lekfgr ugha gS vkSj bl izdkj] e-iz- vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dh xbZ dksbZ Hkh dkjZokbZ O;ko`Ùk ugha gksxhA bl izdkj bls lu~ 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34¼1½ ls vk?kkr igq¡prk gS ftldk vU; fdlh Hkh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dh xbZ lHkh dkjZokbZ;ksa ij v/;kjksgh izHkko gSA 2003¼1½ lqizhe 333 rFkk ¼2000½ 4 ,l lh lh 406 vuqlfjrA 2002¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 173 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k fofuf‘pr vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¿ iSjk 10 ,oa 11À
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 141 && mPp U;k;ky;] mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k dk vuqlj.k djus ds fy, ck/; gS && mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k ij fof/k ij fopkj fd, fcuk fn;k x;k && vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha gSA
¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && mPpre U;k;ky; d fofu‘p; ij fopkj fd, fcuk mPp U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; && vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k fd;k x;k fofu‘p; gS && iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa && vkc)dj ugha gSA
izFker% lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 141 ds v/khu bl U;k;ky; ij mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkdfFkr fof/k vkc)dj gSA f}rh;r% ;fn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k vkSj mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k esa fojks/k gS vkSj@;k ;fn mPp U;k;ky; }kjk viuk;k x;k n`f"Vdks.k mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk igys&gh vf/kdfFkr fof/k ij fopkj fd, fcuk fn;k x;k gS rc] ,slh fLFkfr esa] mPp U;k;ky; dk n`f"Vdks.k vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k viuk;k x;k vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA rc og vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; ugha jgrkA llEeku eSa dguk pkg¡wxk fd ,e-,y- pkSjfl;k ¿2002¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 173À ds ekeys esa fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk viuk;k x;k n`f"Vdks.k ekU; vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tc fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us blh izdkj dh ek¡x ekU; BgjkbZ] D;ksafd og fofu‘p; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ij fopkj fd, fcuk fn;k x;k gSA 2003¼1½ lqizhe 333 rFkk ¼2000½ 4 ,l lh lh 406 vuqlfjrA 2002¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 173 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k fofuf‘pr vfHkfu/kkZfjrA
¿ iSjk 11À
1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of other writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 183, 189, 190, 255, 268, 285, 286, 338, 393, 445, 499, 579, 597, 623, 704,1367 of 2001 and 223, 401, 474, 475, 514, 1004 and 1507 of 2002, because all these writ petitions involve identical issues of facts and law.
2. By filing the writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the Revenue Recovery Certificate (Demand), dated 22.3.2001 for recovery of Rs. 52,22,330/- issued at the instance of respondent No. 1-Central Bank of India under section 3 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short "M.P. Adhiniyam") read with Rule 5 of M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1988 (for short "M.P. Niyam").
3. In view of the short legal controversy sought to be raised by the parties in this writ, it is really not necessary to narrate the facts in detail except which are relevant for the disposal of writs.
4. The respondent No.1 - a Nationalised Bank has advanced a loan (cash credit facility) to respondent No.3 - a Private Limited Company. The petitioner has stood as guarantor for due discharge of the loan advanced to respondent No.3 and has accordingly executed guarantee deeds in favour of respondent-Bank. On 22.3.2001 (Annexure P-l) impugned Certificate of Recovery towards outstanding loan amount of Rs. 52,22,330/- and interest under the M.P. Adhiniyam read with M.P. Niyam was issued at the instance of respondent No. 1 caling upon the petitioner as also the respondent No.3 to pay the said amount as arrears of land revenue by 30.3.2002 for their alleged failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan grantep by the respondent No.1. It is this demand which is impugned by the petitioner in this writ. So far as other writs are concerned, some of them are filed by the principal borrower and some by guarantor. However, in so far as the issue of law is concerned, it is common in all these writs because in all these writs, impugned demand is raised under section 3 of M.P. Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of M.P. Niyam. Notice of the writ was issued to respondents. They are served and represented.
5. Heard Shri G.M. Chafekar, Senior Counsel with Shri Vivek Phadke, Shri Amit Agrawal, Shri Asudani, Shri Ajay Bagadia, Shri S.R. Saraf, Shri Ramesh Saboo, Shri N.K Dave, Shri Rakesh Saxena, Shri P.V. Bhagwat, Shri S.S. Garg, Shri Milind Phadke, Shri U.K Choukse, Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, Shri Anand Pathak, Ku. Rekha Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner and Shri D.S. Kale, Shri S.S. Garg, Shri B.B.L. Agrawal, Shri P. Verma and Shri S. Mukati, Government Advocates, Shri R.S. Sanghi, Shri Milind Phadke, Shri Jindal, Shri Vinay Zelawat, Shri Namjoshi, Shri K Kushwah, Shri P.K Gupta, Shri KN. Puntambekar, counsel for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner's while assailing the legality and validity of the impugned demand in the first place contended that it is per se without jurisdiction. In the second place, it was contended that in view of section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (for short hereinafter referred to as R.D.B. Act), the provisions of, M.P. Adhiniyam could not have been put into operation for issuing the impugned R.R.C. (demand). In the third place, it was contended that the provisions of R.D.B. Act will alone prevail for recovery of alleged due by virtue of section' 34 of the Act and hence, respondent Bank had no authority/jurisdiction to invoke the provisions, of M.P. Adhiniyam for making recovery of the alleged dues by issuing the impugned demand. Learned counsel mainly relied on the law laid down by their lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another (2000) 4 SCC 406. It may also be mentioned that after the conclusion of the hearing of these writs on 9.12.2002, the Supreme Court rendered one decision on 20.12.2002 in the case of M/
