CWP No. 21186 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21186 of 2008 Date of decision January 12 , 2010 Mrs. Surender Kaur ....... Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rohit Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is sought for intervention of this Court for stopping the proceedings initiated by Corporation under the provisions of State Financial Corporation Act to a payment made by the Corporation. At the time when the writ petition was taken on file on 17.12.2008, the Division Bench of this Court had called upon the respondents to stipulate the amount which was due and payable and also had directed that the respondent shall not include any compound penal interest as laid down by consideration of the Supreme Court in Central Bank Vs. Ravinder Kumar AIR 2001 SC 3095. In pursuance of the directions the respondent has served a notice through registered post CWP No. 21186 of 2008 2 informing that the petitioner was due to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.32,94,069/- with further interest from 1.1.2009 and Rs.398,130/- with further interest from 1.1.2009 in yet another loan account and that totally outstanding was 36,18,186/- in Account I and Rs.5,16,659/- with further interest in account II. All that has happened since the date of filing of the petition and the date when notice was issued on 12.2.2009 is that the petitioner has paid Rs.1.50 lacs pursuant to the directions of this Court. 2. I see no bona fides in the petitioner's contention that since the respondent had stated in a subsequent letter which the corporation has issued on 19.3.2009 that the Corporation was taking steps to prefer a SLP to the Supreme Court as regards the directions for compound interest he did not make further payments. That does not still relieve the petitioner of the directions given by the Division Bench to make the payment within a period of 9 months. Judicial intervention would be possible only to remedy statutory violations. Discretionary jurisdiction shall be understood to be available only where statute itself allows discretion to be exercised. Courts are not equipped to pilot financial decisions and how banks and financial institutions must enforce their loans. The fairness test cannot extend beyond what the statute itself provides for. Courts are not resorts to provide holidays against enforcements of loan. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property namely the factory premises will be sold for a grossly low price. The petitioner's future conduct to repay the loan alone could stall such action. There are adequate provisions to provide relief for improper valuation. The procedure is the same as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure and the remedy against fraud and deliberate undervaluation is available for proceedings under the State Finance Corporation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills 2002 (3) SCC 496 that High Court cannot sit in an CWP No. 21186 of 2008 3 appeal against the decisions and orders of quasi judicial as well as administrative authorities under the Act. It is a reaffirmation of the view held in Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Micro Cast Rubber 1996 (5) SCC 65. 3. The writ petition is dismissed and any relief that the petitioner may have against the respondent will be done within the confines under the provisions under the State Financial Act. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 12, 2010 archana