IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR^ AT BILASPUR / WMTPETITIONNo. ^(p 72001 (WMT PETITION DNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) AGRAWAL AUTO TRADE, RAIPUR ICE FACTORY BUILDESG, FAPADffl RAIPUR THROUGH IT'S PROPRIETOR Mr. DEEPA& R. AGR^WAL. Vg?QnJRn&fiaASitALAG£ASQUX43-¥EAR QCCIIEATIQS_BUSB(ESSiJRQPRlTOR A<yRAWAL AUTO TRADE Wo HALWAI LINF SAO^g BAZAR, RACPUR. -: VERSUS: - -fr' <>. ^.. y^<}^' ..^"y^ ^6* •">",-c,'(\l\"^ ! ^ f} 2. 3. MADHYA PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION A BODY INCORPORATED UNDER STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION ACT 1951 HAVING IT'S REGISTEBED OFFIC^; AT AGRA BOMBAY ROAD ESDORE (M.P.) MANAGING DIRECTOR MADHYA PR4DESH FINANCIAL CORPORATION AGRA. BOMBAY ROA»INDORE. GENERAL MANAGAR / BRANCH MANAGAR M.P.F.C. RAIPCR BRANCH RAIPCR. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OE THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA Particulars ofthe Detitioner: f K:i'S tiaII\s XI-HC-22 st.Hn w?g ^[ ^iraTepI, 'g^fteFIS, (»«rlltiy tirew%Tira? .^.:£.^.'^.:...^\b.^T- +iif<'i4'M ^wvSv iwf <f»i<^i< ^ 3]f;gi( 3)1^1 04^)9.2002 Shri Maiundra Shrivast^va alongigith SIiri Manoj Paiaajape, coiinsel for fhe petitioner. | Shri P. Diwakar, counse]l fer thc Financial Corporatfou. Heard. Admittedty, the petition]er had takcn a loan fioin thc M.P. Finaacial Corporationwluch.^asnotbeenrepaid.. Accordmgty,ni fhe l^ht pf the dcc ion of fhe Sypreiae Court in Harayana Finnncinl CSorjKW'atIpa (IB Anrj V. Ms. Ja^amba OU MiUs & Am'., JT 2002 (1) SC 482, no useful| purpose wfflbe served in. keepin^; fhe writ petition pending as th^ same can be disposed of at fhe admission stage. ] Thc petitioner had applfcd for loan ofRs.15,00,000/- wliich was sanctioned on 25.2.1999i andwas dvty dtebursed. Howevear, tfaere has been a defeiult in re^ayment of fhc principal amount aad interest thcreon. Hence, a l^otice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corpoiatioa Act, wa^ issued. Eecling a^rieved therewith, fhc petitibner has appToachcd |{his Courfc On 28.3.2001 wlulc iss^ung notices to respondeate, a Bcnch offhte Court had directed fhe ^l.P. Fmancial Corporation npt to take aay action against the petltitiner undcr Scctmn 29 of the State Fitiaacial Corporation Act aril^ accordingfy" no coereive steps wete taken. The inatter canie up b^ic ttus Court on varipus dates aad ^: tnne was^^ranted to'fhe pejtitioDjcrs to tiy and liquidate tfae loati, Tfaat, however, could notbc dctne. . {^.SBg*: XI-HC-22 sn^T'iRi fyIWSIiS^ ^IfNi'^lfeT ^^ -tii'iiict'lf, ©Til'M'is,iiywy 3'n^i •F?giw(fe AcGording to tfae teame^ couasel for the Corporation., a total sum ofRs.22,88,582/- which| iuterest and tegal chai^es are fhere is a dispute raised byj includes fhe principal amount, penal due E^ainst fhe petitioner. However» the petitioner regardnig the actual guidelanes issued iDJ ^rqfeftf'TTlRrl •? fS^ tf;iR?TC ^; stpgii an^ amoiiat which is due agaiast ^rm. In Haiyana Financial Cforporation case, fhc Supreaie Court has overrufed fhe dccision of |Baliesh, CIumdra'S case (JT 1992 (2) SC 326) emd laas pbserved nji paragrapli 17 of its judgment tfaat Mahesh Chandra's case plaee unnecessaiy restdctions on t^ie excrcise of powcr by fhe fiaancial corporation contained in sec|ion 29 of the Act by requuiag fhe defa.ulting uait holder to be as^ociated or consulted at evciy stage ia the sate of fhe propcrty. A pej-sonwho has defaulted is haidly ever lilcety to cooperate in the sale (^fhis assets. The pTocedure iadicatcd in Mahesh Chandra's case wfll onty lcad to furfhcr delay in realization .of the dues by ttu^ eorporation by sale of assets. It is always expected ttiat the c^rporation will try aad realizc the maxhaum sale price by seBiat; fhe assetsby follpwiag a procedure which.is traasparent and acc^ptable, after due pubUcily, wherevcr possible."' | AccoTdingfy, foBowmg ftfe decision offhe Apex Court, this writ petition is disposed ofon the f^Uowu^ tenns aad conditions: a) The Corporation alongyifh iutercst .haU give fh.e details pf outstanding amouatto fhe peti|tk»nerby 16th Scptember, 2002; b) The petitioner shsjll take all efiforts to pay all flie dues to the Corporation by 31rt December, 2002, iailingwhiG^i, fhe Fiaancial Corporation sliall be at libeny 10 proceed TO dispose of ihe m -? XI-HC-22 3:n^r^ 3?I??^T ^nwafeT 75(-^iAtlct'i(,^8T)lwiS,&(11tfli< /^~~\ ^T ^^;--^:-41)¥^0 <tl<iid4-( 'WRlf ^ 'fe'Zt tfSt^T!: •^-3lpgi[ sn^T. powers uuder Se(ttk>n 29 of fhe Slate Ptaancial Corporation. It is inade clear that fhe p^titioner may inake efforts to sell the property, which faas not becn sejzed so far. •fiut fhis should bc done with due aad prior iD.timation |to thc Finaacial Ccaporation which should be suppUcd wifh aU del^ib. Any amount received towards consideration for sale offhc mbr^gaged property, wiU be first adjusted towards fhe dues. Any. amoita|t, which has been paid dzu-ing tlie pcndency offhe writ pctitmn, Sli4U be credited ^ainst the dues. With the observations aufd directions iiiade abovc, the writ petition staads disposcd of. Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge f-T- itin. TTTT ESBBl ffiE