1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 511 of 2006 SHIV RAM SONI V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. PR MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MANOJ BOHRA for Mr. RAJESH JOSHI, for the respondent Date of Order : 24.10.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that on the face of language of Section 32G of the State Financial Corporation Act, the recovery proceedings can be taken only in respect of any accommodation granted by the Corporation, and he relied upon the Dictionary meaning of “accommodation” to contend that this granting of loan and its non-payment by the appellant, as alleged by the Corporation, does not entitle the Corporation to proceed under Section 32G, and the only remedy that could be availed by the Corporation is under Section 31 and/or 32 read with Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. It is also contended that the amount claimed by 2 the Corporation is in dispute, and therefore, it cannot be recovered unless the Corporation files regular civil suit, and get the amount determined. We have considered the submission, and are not impressed. A look at the provisions of Section 25, 26, 27 etc. of the Act shows that the expression “accommodation” is intended to comprehend the granting of loan by the Corporation to the industry concerned. Even according to the appellant, the loan was granted to him in the year 1986, and as appears from the statement of accounts produced by the respondent before the learned Single Judge as Annexure-R/2/1, that the first payment was made by the appellant in the year 1989 of Rs.3461/- on 25.3.89. Then the next payment is said to have been made in January 1990 of Rs.2000/-, then in March Rs.7000/-, then in September Rs.2500/-, then in November Rs.4000/-, and so on, and that is how the appellant claimed that he has paid Rs.1,80,000/- against the loan of Rs.1,03,700/-. In our view, according to the provisions of Section 32G, which authorises the Corporation, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, to proceed under this provision. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellant's contention about the Corporation being under obligation to have the amount determined by way of regular civil suit before proceeding under Section 32G does not stand. Likewise, so far as requirement of the Corporation to proceed under Section 31 and 32 etc. are 3 concerned, since under Section 32G, the Corporation can proceed without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, it cannot be said, that on that ground, the appellant can challenge the recovery proceedings. Notwithstanding all this, bearing benevolence, we asked the learned for the appellant, as to how much amount he is prepared to pay down cash, so as to grant some indulgence in the matter of repayment, to which learned counsel declined for want of appropriate instructions. It is clear that loan was taken way-back in 1986, now we are in the year 2007, the repayment of loan cannot be allowed to be stalled on such pretext of ad-infinitum. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/