Telangana High Court
N. Ravi Kumar, vs A.P. State Financial ... on 22 November, 2022
Bench: K. Sarath
SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.6151 of 2009
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :
.....to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in
enforcing a time barred debt against the petitioner through
the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act as wholly
arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and void and
consequently, declare the demand notice AFC/HB/99-
2000/101, dated 16.08.2000 issued by the 3rd respondent
and the consequential notice dated 28.01.2008 issued by the
5th respondent under section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act
as illegal and void.
2. Heard Sri. Satya Sadan, representing Sri.M.P.Chandra
Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Hamsa Raj,
learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to
the disputes between the partners, which could not be resolved,
the petitioner resigned from the Board as a Director on
02.02.1990 and the same was informed to the respondent
Corporation with a request to release the petitioner from the
obligation of the Company and also filed Form No.32 with
2 SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
Registrar of Companies informing his resignation from the
Board as a Director. Since the date of his resignation from the
Board as a Director in the year 1990, the petitioner moved away
from the affairs of the Company and it is the obligation of the
other Directors, who were running the Company to repay the
loan to the respondent Corporation. Subsequent to the
resignation the petitioner has not received any notice or
demand from the respondent Corporation for repayment of
loan.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the Directors who were running the unit have not paid
loan to the respondent Corporation and the unit was closed in
the year 1995-96. No notice of seizure or sale of the unit was
issued to the petitioner. After 10 years of his resignation from
the Board as a Director of Company the respondent No.3 issued
a notice vide Proceedings AFC/HB/99-2000/101, dated
16.08.2000 demanding the payment of Rs.25,65,373/- and
directed petitioner to pay the above said amount within 15 days
from the date of the notice, failing which, he will proceed to
invoke the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery
3 SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
Act for recovery of the dues treating the same as arrears of
Land Revenue. The petitioner submitted reply to the respondent
Corporation on 04.09.2000 and informing about his resignation
and in response to the same, the petitioner has not received
any reply from the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents
issued notice for attachment of immovable property under
Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, dated 28.01.2008 and
demanding payment of Rs.16,13,600/- towards principle,
Rs.1,35,99,093/- towards interest, Rs.77,247/- towards other
expenses, in total Rs.1,52,89,940/- with further interest from
01.11.2007 being the arrears of the revenue dues from the
petitioner as Director of M/s.Sindu Auto Scan Private Limited.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent Corporation cannot seek to recover the time barred
debt under the process of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery
Act and relied upon the judgment of this Court in
A.Laxmipathi and another vs Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and others1 and
prayed to allow the writ petition to set aside the orders passed
by the respondent Corporation.
2008 (6) ALD 329
4 SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
6. Sri. Hamsa Raj, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts as per
Revenue Recovery Act and relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala & others vs
V.R.Kalliyanikutty & another2 and requested to dismiss the
writ petition.
7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered
view that admittedly, the petitioner resigned as a Director from
the Board of M/s.Sindu Auto Scan Private Limited Company on
02.09.1990 and the same was communicated to the
respondents. The unit was seized and sold by the respondent
Corporation under Section 29 of SFC Act in the year 1995-96.
No notice of seizure and sale of the unit were issued to the
petitioner and the respondents issued demand notice to the
petitioner on 16.08.2000 under section 52-A, Andhra Pradesh
Revenue Recovery Act and consequential demand notice on
28.01.2008. Similar issue was considered by this Court in
A.Laxmipathi and another vs Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and others1
(supra) after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
AIR 1999 SC 1305
5 SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
Court in State of Kerala & others vs V.R.Kalliyanikutty2
(supra) held that when the action was initiated under Section
29 of the Act for sale of assets of the borrower, the period of
limitation would not apply, and it is only in cases where SFC
invokes Section 52-A of Revenue Recovery Act read with Section
32G of the Act, period of limitation applies.
8. In view of the settled legal position, the respondents
cannot recover the time barred dues from the petitioner.
The demand notice in AFC/HB/99-2000/101 issued by the
3rd respondent on 16.08.2000 and consequential demand
notice issued by the 5th respondent on 28.01.2008 are liable to
be set aside and the same are set aside. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed. No costs.
9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 22.11.2022.
Krl.
6 SK,J
W.P.No.6151 of 2009
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
W.P.No.6151 OF 2009
Date: 22.11.2022
Krl
