THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18497 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner and certain others constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of “M/s. Lalitha Industries”. The firm obtained loan from the A.P. State Financial Corporation, 3rd respondent herein for establishing an industry. On the ground that the instalments were not paid regularly, steps were initiated under Section 29 of the state Financial Corporations Act by the 3rd respondent. The Special Deputy Tahsildar attached to the A.P.S.F.C., 2nd respondent herein issued a notice, dated 03.10.2001, to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.67,60,047/-. It was stated that the amount comprises of principal and interest, that has accrued up to 31.10.1995. The petitioner challenges the notice on several grounds including the one of limitation. On behalf of respondents 2 to 4, a counter affidavit is filed. The details of the loan transaction are furnished. The plea of the petitioner that the demand is time barred is denied. It is stated that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act have been invoked to recover the balance amount. Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner figured as a partner of the firm, which borrowed loan from the 3rd respondent. A perusal of the impugned notice, dated 03.10.2001, discloses that the amount that became due as on 31.10.1995 viz., 67,60,047/- was demanded through it. The averment of the petitioner that he was not served with any notice, earlier to the impugned one, stands unrebutted. Even assuming that any correspondence ensued earlier to the impugned notice, the fact remains that the amount, which became due on 31.10.1995, was demanded only in the year 2001. In State of Kerala vs. Kalyani Kutty[1], the Supreme Court held that the law of limitation applies to the transactions with the State Financial Corporations also . The same was followed by this Court in N.A.Radha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh[2]. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 08.12.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18497 of 2002 Date: 08.12.2008 JSU [1] AIR 1999 SC 1305 [2] 2000 (2) ALT 484