TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 965
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing : The appellant was a director of M/s. Southern Poly Bags P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company"). According to her, she was in its board only for a period of one year from February 14, 1987. The company availed of a term loan of Rs. 26,20,000 and a bridge loan of Rs. 3,52,000 from the Kerala Financial Corporation (for short "KFC"). According to the appellant, the term loan was availed of on February 2, 1987 and the bridge loan on March 18, 1988, when she was not a member of the board of directors of the company. Since the company defaulted to pay the amounts due under the loan agreements, the second respondent KFC took over the factory run by the company under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, in 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant after the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings, by virtue of section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, read with section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transaction was invalid. Therefore, the original petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, this writ appeal is preferred. 3. We heard learned senior counsel Sri K.P. Dandapani for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the second respondent KFC. We also heard the learned Government pleader for the first respondent. Learned senior counsel mainly raised two points before us. The first point was that in view of the interpretation given to section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision of this court in M. Usman v. Kerala Financial Corpn. [2007] 136 Comp Cas 454. Learned standing counsel also submitted that since the loan sanctioned was to be repaid in 94 monthly instalments commencing from March 10, 1990 and ending on February 10, 1997, the recovery of the loan was not time barred in 1994-95, when steps were taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, in answer, submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this court in M. Usman (supra), cannot stand with the decision of the apex court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra). So, the said decision requires re-consideration. 6. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and hypothecated by the borrower company. Therefore the respondent-Corporation took possession of the assets in exercise of the powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. Thereafter the aforesaid properties were sold for a sum of Rs. 18,10,000 and sale proceeds were credited in the account of the company on March 21, 1994. After giving credit to the sale proceeds a sum of Rs. 42,69,225 was outstanding in the loan account of the company. The second respondent issued a requisition dated November 3, 1994, to the District Collector for initiating revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner and other guarantors for realisation of the balance amount due under the loan account. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the apex court will squarely apply to the facts of this case. 9. Section 34 of the Act reads as follows : "34. Act to have overriding effect.-(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Financial Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (6....