Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. S.M. Singh Royekwar Advocate appears for opposite party no.4/Bank.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Bank has proceeded to recover the money under the Uttar Pradesh Public Money's (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 by issuing impugned recovery certificate/citation, whereas recovery proceedings have already been initiated to recover the loan under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The stage of recovery of loan under the Act, 2002 has been disclosed as the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 has been issued to take possession of the mortgaged property for the purpose of recovery of loan.
Submission is that two parallel proceedings cannot be held.
Since the Act, 2002 is a complete code and it provides complete procedure to recover the money, we are of the view that there was no reason for the Bank to adopt other proceeding to recover the money that too under the different Act i.e. under Act, 1972, therefore, we feel it appropriate to interfere with the recovery proceeding initiated under the Act, 1972. However, the respondents-Bank shall be permitted to proceed with the recovery proceedings initiated under the Act, 2002 in accordance with the law. The recovery citation dated 25.1.2021 issued by the respondent-Bank under the Act 1972 shall, therefore, be kept in abeyance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that under similar circumstances this court vide order dated 5.12.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.29312 (MB) of 2017 has granted indulgence and has passed similar order.
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank agrees that the writ petition may be disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 prabhat