IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.280 of 2009 M/S VINOY PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, C/O.16 & 17 (Part), Industrial Area, Fatwah, P.O.& P.S-Fatwah, Distt-Patna being represented through its Managing Partner, Shri Vinay Kumar, age 54 years, S/O Late Bindeshwari Prasad Shrivastave, at present resident of G/7, Peoples’ Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh Colony, P.O.Kankarbagh, Dist-Patna. …………Appellant Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Industries Development Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Industries, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director, Technical Development, Department of Industries, State of Bihar, Patna. 3. Divisional Manager, Canara Bank. Boring Road, Patna. 4. Branch Manager, Canra Bank, Fatwah Bazar, Fatwah, Patna. 5. Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna. 6. Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Industrial Area, Fatwah, Patna. ……………Respodents. ----------- 4. 7-Jul-09 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the various respondents. On behalf of appellant it has been submitted that there was a joint meeting of the representative of Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation), the appellant as well as the representative of Canara Bank for financing the petitioner-unit pursuant to which as per demand of the Canara Bank the Corporation released a margin money of Rs.2 Lacs 37 thousand in 1988. According to learned counsel for the appellant the Bank was not justified in adjusting that money against the dues of the appellant-unit and further money to be released by the 2 Bank was also not released. These grievances appear to have been raised on behalf of appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition filed in the year 1998 when it was issued with a notice under Section 29 and 30 of the State Finance Corporations Act-1951 by the Corporation. The writ Court has recorded that after going through the stand of the Bank and on perusing the relevant annexure it does not find any wrong action on behalf of Canara Bank and the writ petitioner was not entitled to any direction upon the Bank to return the so-called margin money. After considering the relevant facts and particularly the fact that no proceeding was initiated against the Bank by the writ petitioner/appellant till the year 1998 and the grievance noted above has been raised only after receipt of notice under Section 29 and 30 of State Finance Corporations Act, we do not find any good reason to take a different view in the matter than what has been taken by the writ Court. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that if the appellant- unit is desirous and there is any settlement scheme offered by the Corporation then it will always be at 3 liberty to apply for one time settlement of its dues and if application to that effect is filed by the appellant, the Corporation is expected to consider the same in accordance with law and its policy decision. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash,J.)