SHYAM SINGH versus COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, U.P., AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 25-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHYAM SINGH 
v. 
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, U.P., AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 
B 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
U.P. Agricultural Credit Ac~ 1973 : 
Sections 10-B, 11 and 1 JA-Recovery of debt due-Simultaneous 
C proceedings for attachment/sale of propeTty of borrowe,._.j/alue of movable 
propeTty sufficient to satisfy the amount due-Disposal of immovable proper-
ly-Not allowing oj-{)iscretion of Courts. 
The appellant took a loan of Rs. 34,000 from a Bank for pul'chase of 
a tractor by mortgaging 22 acres of land belonging to him. The tl'actor so 
D purchased had been hypothecated with the Bank. The appellant defaulted 
in making payment of the instalments. The Bank approached the Tehsildar 
for recovery of the outstanding amount in accordance with the procedure 
prescribed by S.10-B of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The Tehsil-
dar initiated recovery proceedings, attached the tractor and took it away 
E from the custody of the appellant. The estimated value of the tractor 
mentioned in the recovery proceedings was more than the total amount 
due. 
Subsequently a proceeding was initiated under Section 11-A of the 
U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 for recovery of the said amount and a 
F 
notice was issued under Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellant objected stating that first the sale 
proceeds of tractor be acljusted and steps for sale of agricultural lands be 
taken up only thereafter. He also pointed out that the authorities themsel-
ves fixed the estimated value or the tractor at an amount higher than the 
G amount due to the Bank. Since this plea was rejected by the Revenue 
authorities, the appellant approached the High Court by way or a Writ 
Application for quashing the proceedings Initiated by the respondents for 
sale of the agricultural lands. 
The High Court having dismissed the Writ Application the appellant. 
H preferred the present Appeal. 
862 
SHYAMSINGH v. COLLECTOR 
863 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that lo view of the fact A 
that admittedly the tractor in question was attached and removed from 
the custody of the appellant by the Tebsildar lo exercise of the power 
under section 10-B of the Act, It should be deemed that the appellant bas 
been absolved from bis liability to-pay the amount lo question to the Bank. 
Allowing the appeal, Ibis Court, 
HELD : 1. Courts have to aid the creditor In realising the dues from 
the debtor. But at the same time in the special facts and circumstances of 
a particular case, the Court can direct the decree-bolder or the creditor 
B 
not to put any property on sale if by the mode already opted by the C 
decree-bolder or the creditor, the amount due bas been realised or likely 
to be realised without any further delay. (873-C) 
The Padrauma Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. The Land Reforms 
Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1969 SC 897, relied on. 
Anadila/ v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1936 All. 495; Mono Mohan v. Upendra 
Mohan, AIR 1935 Calcutta 127; Subramania Cheltiar v. A. Ponnuswami 
Cheltiar, AIR 1957 Madras 777 and Uma Kanta Baneljee v. Ranwick and 
Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 Calcutta 717, approved. 
D 
2.1. Whatever may be said in connection with an execution proceeding E 
under the provisions of the Code of CMI Procedure the analogy may not be 
apposite where the recovery proceedings are statutory In natore and the 
creditor Is Itself the State or as here an authority within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Coostltotlon. The tractor in question was seized and 
removed lo accordance with a statutory provision. 1be right of the Bank to F 
follow one or the other modes, separately or simoltaneously, for the realisa-
tion of the dues bas to be recognised. Bot that right does not extend to the 
extent of selling the different movable or Immovable properties of the debtor 
onder different provisions and tbroogb dlffernt procedures without ascer-
taining whether the amooot doe bas already been realised by sale of the 
property already attached in the proceeding which were initiated for the G 
purpose. The Court, should, on the facts and circumstances of a particular 
case, decide as to whether simultaneous proceedings should be permitted 
against the debtor for realisation of the same amount. While exercising such 
discretion, Court bas to be conscious of the fact that the debtors are general-
ly interested In delaying the realisation of the debts. (874 C-F] 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT 

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