IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR L---" WRIT PETITION No. /2001 JCWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INinA) [TIONER: ^ .••'"^ AJ^' \fyy.- ^•"^ <•^ •>< ;SPONDENTS: - AGRAWAL AUTOMOBILES R4IPUR ICE FACTORyBUILDEMG, FAFADIH RAIPUR THROUGH IT'S PROPRIETOR Mr. DEEPAK R. AGRAWAL. V^k^R^SGS^SSkStJ^E A^9IOL5&-YEAR @pqUPAT}QNBUSXHES§,_FROEgTOOR ^G^AWAJLAlTmMOSB'E K/o PARVATI ^UJE^R,J1<CI¥SAINES^A BR. -: VERSUS: - MADHYA PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION A BODY NCORPORATED UNDER STATE FmANCIAL CORPORATION ACT 1951 HAVING IT'S REGISTERED OFFICE AT AGRA BOMBAY ROAD FMDORE (M.P.) MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PRAOESH FNANCIAL CORPORATION AGRA BOMBAY ROAD INDORE. GENERAL MANAGAR / BRANCH MANAGAR M.P.F.C. RAIPUR BRANCH RAIPUR. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Particularsofthe petitioner: As detailed above in cause title. XI-HC-22 STCT^:! ^^ 3TT?T?'i 'a^iN?'aftiT ,!-<... ^-cc| I, 'g^ff'l?, facli'My ..^..•13..-...M1.3.....tt: sn^i'^giw^ft?' +.l1irl4i^ tiTwrr ^ 'f^st WSRSTC ^siBmsn^i 04.09.200a Shri Manmdra Shrivastavfa alongwifh Shri Mauoj Paranjape, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri P. Diwakar, counsel fc|r the Pinaiicial Corporation. Heaid. Adnuttedly, the petitioner] had taken a loaa finia the M.P. Fiaancial Corporsrdon whlch bas inot been repaid. Accordingly, in the l^ht of fhe decision of the Su^reme Court iu Harayana Finaacial CoTporaUon & Anar. V. Ms. Ji^gdamba OU MtUs te Aa»., JT 2002 (1) SC 482, no usefdl purpose|will be served in keeping fhe writ petition pending as llie same c^n be disposed of at fhe adinission stage. The petitioner had appUe4 for loaa of Rs.25,00,000/- wtucli was sauctioned on 25.2.1999 s|nd was duly dteburaed. However, fhere bas been a defa.ult in rep4yment of fhe prmcipal amount aud interest fhereon. Hence, a noticc iinder Sectiou 29 of fhe State Finaacial Corporation Act, was |ssued. FeeMi^ a^rieved therewifh, fhe petitioner has approached fbd^ Court. On 28.3.2001 wliile issuia^ notices to respoadents, a Baich of thj®Court had directedtheM.Fi. Finaacial Corporation not to take auy action E^ainst fhe petitiDB(er uader Section 29 x>{ fhe State Finaacial Corpoiation Act and [accordmgfy no coercive steps were taken. The inatter came up befi|}re this Court on various dates and x-<y tuue was granted to ftie peti^ioners to tty aad Uquidate the-loan. That, however, could notbe donei. [-fts^fesi —•2-— 1-^.. XI-HC-22 S^V V, ["p3rR;n 'a^HWBft'a ;rss^'1 ms d^Ss ^s; ^IPTRPI, dxil+i^ii, facii'yy sniw Wii!iT( :Hfta /->- ft'T'WRff'? fet^ TfeSR 'Sr Slf^TCf 31^1 According to the leamed c^iinsel for the Corporation, a total sum of Rs.38,28,021/- whfch in<j:ludes the principal amount, peiial interest and le^al chai^es are du|e against the petitioner. However, thcre js a dispute raised by tl^e pctiti»ner regarding the actual amount which is due agaiast hini.! In Haiyaaa Floaacial Corpoi-ation case, fhe Suprenae Court has overruled the dccision of Maheri^ Chandia's <Hise (JT 1992 (2) SC 326) and has obseryed in paijagraph 17 of its judgment' fhat "......... guidelincs issucd ia ^lahesh Chandra's case plaec uuuecessaiy restrictions on fhe ^xereise of powcr by fhe financial corporation conteiued in sectioEJ 29 of fhe Act by requiring the dcfaultu^; itait holder to be assocjiated or consulted at eveiy stage ia the sale offhje properly. A perso^i who has defaulted is hardty cver likety to cooperate in thc sale of h|fa assets. The procedure indicated in Mahesh diandra's case wi|l oidy tead to further delay ia realizatiort of the dues by the c^rporation by sale of assets. It is always expected fhat fhe corp^ration wffl tiy aad realize the inaxim.um. sale price by seIUng fl^e assets by followit^ a procedure wliich is teansparent and accept^ble, after due pubUcity, wherever possible." j Accordu^ty, foUowing llie d^cision of the Apex Court, fhis writ petition is disposed ofon the foUo^ing tenns aad conditions: sQ The Corporation sha|l give the details of outetanduq; amouat to the petitiDD^r by 16111 Septeiaber, 2002. b) The petitioner shaU t^ke aU cflForts to pay all fhe dues alongwifh iuterest to ^he CorpbratiDn by 3lrt December, 2002, fsdSsng whfch, f4e Financial Corporation shaUbe at liberty to procecd to d4spose offhe property in exercise of [^i^fe^ • ^Bt- p-^ XI-HC-22 3IR^T^ ! wsfies'i arnRT^HfetT ^s snva '^iT'i.'t •gfta -•3 ^liin'ft7? nudf 4 wzr ^.•siNqsn^ powers under Se^tion 29 of fhe State Fuiaacial Corporation. It is inade clear fhat fhe ^etitioner inay inake efforts to seU fhe property, which has not been scjized so far. But this .should be done with due aad prior nitnnation |to thc Fiaancial Corporation which should be supplied with aU delails. Aay amount received towards coD.sideration for sale of the moijtgaged property, wiU be first adjusted towards the dues. Any amoii4t, which has been paid diiring the pendency offhe writ petition, sh^U bc credited against the dues. With the observations a^td directions niade above, the writ petition staads disposed of. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge f