M/S. UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. versus U.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 20-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 
B 
V. 
U.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, I993-
C Section 34(2)-Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, I972-
Recovery proceedings by financial Corporation under U.P. Act in view of 
Section 34(2)-Maintainability of-lfeld, recovery proceedings under U.P Act 
is not permissible since Section 34 confers overriding effect vis-ii-vis other 
statutes and proceedings under U.P. Act are not the exceptions to such 
overriding effect-Further the U.P. Act deals with separate modes of recovery 
D and such proceedings are not relatable to proceedings under the Financial 
Act. 
Interpretation ofSlatutes-Legislative intent-language of the statute is 
the determinative factor-Intention is found in the words used by legislature 
itself-If statutory provision is plain and unambiguous Court cannot read 
E anything into it. 
Principle of construction-Causus omissus and reading statute as whole-
Discussed. 
F 
Respondent-Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under the 
Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 against 
appellants. Appellant chaUenged the same on the ground that after the 
enactment of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institutions 
Act, 1993 (the Act), the proceedings were not maintainable. High Court ·· 
held that the choice was left open to Financial Corporation to proceed 
G under the D.R.T. Act or under the other modes of recovering the debts 
i.e. it could proceed under the provisions of the U.P. Act. Hence the present 
appeal. 
H 
Appellant contended that Section 34 of the Act confers overriding 
effect vis-a-vis other statutes; that the only exceptions to such overriding 
666 
UNIQUE BUTYLE TUBE INDUS. PVT. LTD. 1·. U.P. FINANCIAL CORPN. 
667 
effect are enumerated in sub-section (2), which does not encompass the A 
proceedings under U.P. Act; and that the action permissible so far as 
Financial Act is concerned can be spelt out from Section 32(G) of the 
Financial Act. 
Respondents contended that under the U.P. Act, there is no question 
of any adjudication of dues payable and once there is default, there is B 
statutory empowerment to issue a certificate for recovery; that the 
procedure is not in conflict with any proceeding that can be taken under 
the Act; that the statutory intention for enactment of the Act was to do 
away with the cumbersome procedure involved for recovery and the 
provisions are not inconsistent with any provision of the U.P. Act, which C 
in terms of Section 3(3) prohibits institution of a case for recovery of the 
sums due, therefore, High Court was justified in its conclusion; and that 
in any event, the procedures under the Act are in pari materia with those 
which can be taken under the Financial Act so such a prescription has to 
be read into Section 34(2) of the Act by application of the principle known 
as causus omissus and deficiency, if any, can be reconciled by purposive D 
interpretation by reading the said statute as a whole, and finding out the 
true legislative intent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 34 sub-section (I) of the Recovery of Debts due E 
to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 deals with the over-riding 
effect of the Act 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 the Act. It makes an exception as 
regards matters covered by sub-section (2). U.P. Act is not mentioned 
therein. Mode of recovery of debt under the U.P. Act is no~ saved under 
sub-section (2). Even a bare reading therein makes it clear that it is 
intended to be in addition to and not in derogation of certain statutes; one 
F 
of which is the Financial Act. In other words, a Bank or Financial 
institution has the option or choice to proceed either under the Act or 
under the modes of recovery permissible under the Financial Act. To that G 
extent, High Court's conclusions were correct. However it went wrong by 
holding that proceedings under the U.P. Act were permissible. U.P. Act 
deals with separate modes of recovery and such proceedings are not 
relatable to proceedings under the Financial Act. Therefore the 
proceedings under the U.P. Act are quashed. However, it will be open to 
the Corporation to take such action

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.