IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4928 of 2007 Date of decision: February 10, 2009. Kamal Kishore Gupta ...Petitioner(s) v. Haryana Financial Corporation & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent(s) No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - The petitioner seeks quashing of the recovery certificate dated 4.8.2005 (Annexure P-7) and a direction to the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceedings against him. It appears that the subject recovery certificate pertains to the non-discharge of loan liability by M/s Arawali Pipes Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner's case is that he was an employee of the aforesaid concern and he never signed as a guarantor and his signatures were allegedly forged. On this premise, the petitioner contends that no recovery can be effected from him. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter affidavit/rejoinder, etc., have been filed by the parties. CWP No.4928 of 2007 : 2 : On October 31, 2008, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “Grievance in the petition is that the petitioner never signed as guarantor and his signatures were forged. He was only an employee of the debtor company. He raised an objection in reply to notice under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, but without passing any speaking order or deciding this objection, recovery certificate was issued. This was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure required to be followed in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand (2004) 11 SCC 625. Learned counsel for the Financial Corporation says that he will check up the position and if there is non-compliance of the mandatory procedure as laid down in the above judgment, the needful will be done and objection of the petitioner decided after considering the view point of the petitioner and decision conveyed to the petitioner before the next date.” In deference thereto, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that since the petitioner's contention was not earlier dealt with specifically, the respondents have decided to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to him and for that purpose, show cause notice dated 25.2.2009 has already been issued to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner's claim shall be considered afresh as per law and till the matter is decided, no recovery shall be effected from him. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. February 10, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge