IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5387 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 01, 2008 Smt.Sudesh Rani .....PETITIONER Versus Haryana Financial Corporation, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 25.1.2007 issued by the Specified Authority under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in favour of respondent No.1- Corporation. The said certificate has been issued against M/s S.K.Industries, Kanganour Road, village Khaja Khera, Tehsil and District Sirsa and its partners Surender Kumar Sharma, Satnam Singh, Smt.Sudesh Rani (petitioner) and Azad Bindu. It is the case of the petitioner that at one point of time when the loan was taken, the petitioner was partner of the firm. Undisputedly, the firm had defaulted in re-payment of the said loan. The petitioner has filed this petition only on the ground that in the year 1992 the petitioner C.W.P. No. 5387 of 2008 -2- had retired from the partnership firm. However, in support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a letter written by Surinder Kumar, one of the partner of the aforesaid firm, a copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. From the reading of the said letter, it does not indicate that the same was the dissolution deed. Undisputedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that the dissolution deed was ever written. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner being a lady, no coercive steps for recovery of arrears as land revenue can be taken against her under Section 69(4) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. We do not find any force in this contention of the counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner is totally misplaced because till date no arrest warrant has been issued against her. In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any ground to interfere in this petition because the petitioner being partner of the firm at the relevant time is also liable to pay the outstanding amount. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 01, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE