IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12921 of 2010 Balaji Fuels Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, Town and District Ranchi (Jharkhand-834005 through its Managing Director Rajendra Singh son of Shri Lal Narayan Singh, resident of Dutta Lane, New Area, Morabadi, Ranchi-834008. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Credit & Investment corporation limited through its Managing Director, Indira Bhawan (4th Floor), Ram Charitra Path, Patna-800 001. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Credit &Investment Corporation Limited, Indira Bhawan (4th Floor), Ram Charitra Path, Patna-800 001. 3. Deputy Manager, Accounts, Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited, Indira Bhawan (4th Floor), Ram Charitra Path, Patna-800 001. 4. Assistant Manager, Accounts, Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited, Indira Bhawan (4th Floor), Ram Charitra Path, Patna-800 001. 5. M/s Rudra Steel Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at village- Vikash Irba, Ormajhi, Ranchi, through its Director Krishna Singh S/O Late Beni Prasad Singh, resident of H.No.9 Guari Enclave, Matri Marg, Bariyatu, P.S.-Bariyatu, District-Ranchi. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Senior Advocate, with Amit Kumar Singh &Alok Kumar Singh, Advocates. For respondent nos.1 to 4: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate. For respondent no.5 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate. --------- 07/ 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Limited and its authorities (respondent nos. 1 to 4) and also learned counsel for intervenor-respondent no.5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents-authorities to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ and to return the original copies of the land deed, mutation paper and land receipts which was submitted in the - 2 - office of the Corporation at the time of sanctioning loan by way of security as the petitioner-Company has paid back entire loan amount and other charges. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company through the Managing Director Rajendra Singh had taken loan from the Corporation and has already returned the entire amount of loan, with interest, charges, costs etc. and admittedly no dues of the respondent-Corporation remains with the petitioner-company. These facts are admitted by all the parties to this writ petition. 4. However, learned counsel for respondent no.5 M/s Rudra Steel Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Krishna Singh claims that Board of Directors of the petitioner M/s Balaji Fuels Pvt. Ltd. as well as of respondent no.5 M/s Rudra Steel Pvt. Ltd. is the same and loan has also been taken by M/s Rudra Steel Pvt. Ltd. from the Corporation for which separate securities have been deposited as guarantees with the Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 further submits that the land documents which the petitioner wants to withdraw also concerns respondent no.5 and, in fact, respondent no.5 has given it to the petitioner for availing term loan from the Corporation for the petitioner-firm. He relies upon resolution of the Board of Directors of petitioner-firm dated 03.03.1993 (Annexure-C) which was signed by Krishna Singh and others and the same had been consented by Rajendra Singh vide letter dated 02.03.1993 (Annexure-B) with respect to title deed being used as - 3 - corporate guarantee. Hence, he submits that there is no occasion for the respondent –Corporation to hand over those documents to the petitioner. 6. Considering the arguments of the parties as well as the facts of the case and the materials involved, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had taken loan and had deposited the documents as guarantees in the said loan. It is also not in dispute that it was the petitioner who had returned the amount of loan with interest, charges, cost etc. and no amount remains to be paid with respect to the petitioner-firm. It is also admitted fact that the documents which the petitioner is claiming from the BICICO are those documents which had been deposited by the petitioner as guarantee for the petitioner-firm. In the said circumstances, the BICICO is duty bound to return to the petitioner all the documents which had been deposited by the petitioner for the loan granted to him and also issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ with respect thereto. 7. So far the claim of respondent no.5 is concerned the BICICO will be at liberty to deal with the loan amount and the securities which has been deposited with respect to any loan taken by respondent no.5 considering the corporate guarantee on which reliance has been placed. This court does not want to express any opinion with respect to resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company as it is their internal matter and the petitioner or any member of the Board of Director is at liberty to raise that issue before an appropriate forum. - 4 - 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is allowed with a direction the Corporation and its authorities to grant ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the petitioner and return documents submitted by the petitioner as security within two months. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)