Harkiran Kaur Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1064291
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-09-2013
AppellantHarkiran Kaur
RespondentPunjab Financial Corporation and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.3311 of 2008 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: may 09, 2013 cwp no.3311 of 2008 (o&m) harkiran kaur …petitioner versus punjab financial corporation and another …respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice hemant gupta hon’ble ms.justice ritu bahri present: - mr.ajaivir singh, advocate for the petitioner. mr.vikas mohan gupta, advocate for the respondents.1 to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2 whether the judgment should be reported in the digest hemant gupta, j. the present writ petition is by the auction purchaser challenging order dated 14.02.2008 (p-7) passed by respondent no.2 in exercise of powers conferred under section 32(g) of the state financial corporation act, 1951 (for short 'the act') whereby the respondent-corporation has issued recovery certificate against the petitioner for non-payment of the amount as mentioned in the show cause notice. a perusal of the impugned order dated 14.02.2008 shows that the amount, which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner has not been specified but it is stated that the corporation shall be entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the application and thereafter ordered the issuance of recovery certificate. mr.gupta, learned counsel for the respondents states cwp no.3311 of 2008 (o&m) -2- that the only recovery against the petitioner is of unpaid sale consideration and not of the amount due and payable by the borrowers.the question whether for the unpaid sale amount, the corporation can proceed against the auction purchaser under section 32(g) of the act, has been examined by a division bench of this court in lpa no.2262 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2012 titled m/s prabhu kripa rice mill v. punjab financial corporation' wherein it was held to the following effect: “the corporation cannot proceed against the appellant for the balance sale consideration either under section 31 or 32 (g) of the act as well. as nothing can be claimed from the appellant after the sale of the property, fetching more price that the price offered by the appellant. there cannot be thus any recovery even on the basis of risk and cost clause of the agreement.” in view of the said fact, we find that the issue raised in the present petition has already been decided in m/s prabhu kripa rice mill's case (supra).consequently, the writ petition is allowed. order dated 14.02.2008 (p-7) is quashed as against the petitioner. (hemant gupta) judge (ritu bahri) judge 09 05.2013/atul
Judgment:

CWP No.3311 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 09, 2013 CWP No.3311 of 2008 (O&M) Harkiran Kaur …Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation and another …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: - Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.1 To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2 Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present writ petition is by the auction purchaser challenging order dated 14.02.2008 (P-7) passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') whereby the respondent-Corporation has issued recovery certificate against the petitioner for non-payment of the amount as mentioned in the show cause notice.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.02.2008 shows that the amount, which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner has not been specified but it is stated that the Corporation shall be entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the application and thereafter ordered the issuance of recovery certificate.

Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents states CWP No.3311 of 2008 (O&M) -2- that the only recovery against the petitioner is of unpaid sale consideration and not of the amount due and payable by the borroweRs.The question whether for the unpaid sale amount, the Corporation can proceed against the auction purchaser under Section 32(G) of the Act, has been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2262 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2012 titled M/s Prabhu Kripa Rice Mill v.

Punjab Financial Corporation' wherein it was held to the following effect: “The Corporation cannot proceed against the appellant for the balance sale consideration either under Section 31 or 32 (G) of the Act as well.

As nothing can be claimed from the appellant after the sale of the property, fetching more price that the price offered by the appellant.

There cannot be thus any recovery even on the basis of risk and cost clause of the agreement.”

In view of the said fact, we find that the issue raised in the present petition has already been decided in M/s Prabhu Kripa Rice Mill's case (supra).Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

Order dated 14.02.2008 (P-7) is quashed as against the petitioner.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 09 05.2013/Atul