IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.22400 of 2008 in C.W.P. No.6984 of 2007 Date of decision: 25.11.2008 Sanjiv Kumar and another. -----Petitioners Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. ----- ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, order dated 10.11.2008 is recalled. 3. The writ petition has been filed against recovery certificate issued under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, “the Act”) dated 25.1.2007, Annexure P-9, and further proceedings in pursuance thereof. 4. The petitioners were Directors of M/s Anmol Agro India Pvt. Ltd. and in that capacity stood as guarantors for the loan advanced by C.W.P. No.6984 of 2007 respondent No.1/Corporation. On account of default in repayment, the unit of the principal debtor was taken over under Section 29 of the Act and though initially, highest bid for Rs.115.51 lacs was received, the property was finally sold for Rs.70 lacs on 21.10.1999. Another property was sold for Rs.10.10. lacs on 16.11.1999. After adjusting the said amounts, the Corporation raised demand for the outstanding balance and finally, issued recovery certificate for Rs.3,66,22,139/- with further interest from 1.9.2006. 5. Contentions raised in the petition, inter-alia, are that the petitioners were not given due opportunity of being heard, so that they could raise objections of limitation/undue delay, excessive interest, unjustified delay in disposal of assets for long period, compounding of penal interest, non-consideration of circumstances on account of which payments could not be made in time etc. It is submitted that the petitioners have lost all their properties and it will be too harsh if further proceedings are taken for such a heavy demand, which is mainly on account of compound interest. The initial loan was Rs.82.50 lacs. The Corporation has already recovered Rs.80.10 lacs by sale of the properties, apart from the amount paid by the principal debtor. 6. The Corporation has denied the averment that no opportunity of being heard was given and has also sought to explain circumstances in which highest bid was not accepted and delay occurred. It has been explained that recovery certificate was earlier issued under the provisions of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 and in those proceedings, the petitioners were 2 C.W.P. No.6984 of 2007 represented by an Advocate. Later, on account of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others (2003) 2 SCC 455, a fresh recovery certificate had to be issued. Notice was sent to the petitioners but none appeared on 5.12.2006 and the amount was determined. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the date fixed, the petitioners could not appear and had sought adjournment by sending an application, but the petitioners never learnt the outcome of the said prayer. 8. Learned counsel for the Corporation states that there is no pleadings in the writ petition to this effect. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit that prayer for adjournment had been made. There being very heavy demands against the petitioners and the certificate having been issued on the very first date after notice, we are of the opinion that it will not be fair to treat the recovery certificate final, when stand of the petitioners is that they could not appear for the reasons beyond their control and they had sought adjournment. We are of the view that the petitioners should be given fresh hearing by the Corporation. 10. Accordingly, we direct the specified authority to hear the petitioners on such issues as they may raise afresh on 19.1.2009 at 11- 00 A.M. or on such subsequent dates as may be fixed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners shall appear before the specified authority on the said date. 12. Till the proceedings are finalised, the recovery certificate will be held in abeyance. 3 C.W.P. No.6984 of 2007 13. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the fresh order that may be passed, they will be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law. 14. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 25, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4