- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R M/s Ratan Industries Corp. vs. RFC & Ors. S.B.CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.2374/2006 DATE OF ORDER : 28th February, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Sudhir Sharma, for the petitioner. Dr.Rakesh Sinha, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The petitioner firm has preferred this writ petition with regard to settlement of its dues and recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents and made a prayer that impugned letters dated 24/2/2006 (Annex.28) and 25/2/2006 (Annex.29) may be quashed and respondents may be directed to settle the case of petitioner under OTS (one time settlement) Scheme, 1997. According to the facts of the case, in the year 1981 the respondent RFC sanctioned a lone of Rs.3,92,000/- to the petitioner firm and thereafter another loan of - 2 - Rs.6,72,000/- was also sanctioned in the month of April, 1985. Upon default of payment of loan, proceedings under the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, 1951 were initiated and notices under Section 29 and 30 of the said Act were issued. After due process of law, the possession of the unit was taken and at the time of taking over the possession by the RFC, an amount of Rs.49,28,624/- was due. After taking possession of the said unit, it was put to auction and unit was auctioned on the basis of offer received from one Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal and sale approval letter was also issued in favour of Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal. Against the said auction, another bidder namely Shri Devraj Pagaria filed writ petition before this Court and said writ petition was dismissed. So also the Special Appeal filed by Shri Devraj Pagaria was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, Shri Devraj Pagaria approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, which was registered as SLP (C ) No.21007/98. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said SLP by passing the following order: “Leave granted. - 3 - Heard counsel on both sides. We are of the view that in the context of the affidavits filed in this Court, the order of the High Court is to be set aside. We set side the same. Learned senior counsel appearing for the borrower submits that penal interest has been waived or is capable of being waived under a scheme. It will be open to the borrower to make an application to the 1st respondent for waiver of the penal interest, if he has not filed any such application so far provided that the application is filed within two weeks from today. In case such application is received by the first respondent as stated above, the same shall be disposed by the 1st respondent within fifteen days thereafter and be communicated to the borrower by registered post, acknowledgment due. In case waiver is granted wholly or in part, the borrower shall pay the amount due to the Corporation, subject to such waiver, if any granted, within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. In case the borrower does not pay the amount so due, within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the Corporation to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. The money, if any, deposited by the previous purchaser will be paid back to him by - 4 - the first respondent. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.” Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that Hon'ble Apex Court specifically observed in the proceedings, in which present petitioner was also party, that in case borrower does not pay the amount so due within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the Corporation to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. In compliance of the said order, a representation of the original borrower – petitioner was considered by the competent authority and petitioner unit was informed to deposit Rs.27,54,000/- in order to settle the accounts. The petitioner unit was not satisfied with the settlement and, therefore, moved a contempt petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided on 7/4/2000. The petitioner has quoted in para 5, the order passed by Hon'ble Apex court, which reads as under:- “After hearing counsel on both sides we find that the demand of Rs.27,54,000/- by the Rajasthan Financial - 5 - Corporation is justified. The petitioner is granted 3 months time for paying the amount. If the amount is paid before that time the possession of the property will be restored. In case the amount is not paid by that time, it will be open to the respondent to take action in accordance with law.” Meaning thereby, the demand of Rs. 27,54,000/- was found to be justified by the Hon'ble Apex Court and three months time was granted to the firm to deposit the said amount but the original borrower-petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount in stipulated time, hence proceedings were initiated by the RFC. The petitioner is now challenging the further proceedings which were initiated by the RFC in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In my opinion, once the Hon'ble Apex Court has finally adjudicated the matter and held that amount of Rs.27,54,000/- is justified then it is not open for this Court to interfere in the matter. Likewise, petitioner was under obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court to pay the amount within stipulated - 6 - time, which was three months. Admittedly, the said amount was not deposited, therefore, further proceedings were initiated by the RFC. In these circumstances, in my opinion, no interference is required in this case because respondents are proceeding against the petitioner as per the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court, which cannot be questioned by way of filing present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. Pankaj Baweja