IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17221 of 2009 M/S MAHADEO FRUIT PROCESSING INDUSTRY Versus THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS ----------- 4 29.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. An Incentive-cum-Loan Restructuring Scheme (ILRS) 2008 has been circulated by the respondent, the Bihar State Financial Corporation (BSFC) vide circular dated 26.6.2008.The primary object of the said restructuring scheme is to liquidate the old dues and the loan account of various entrepreneurs. The petitioner had taken two loans from the Corporation for setting up a Fruit Processing Unit. The first loan was for Rs. 2.67 lakhs sanctioned on 23.5.1977 and the second one was an additional loan of Rs. 4.36 lakhs which was sanctioned on 4.5.1979. The first loan is not an issue in the present case. It is a repayment of second loan account for which the petitioner decided to avail the benefit of restructuring scheme. The principal outstanding was shown against the petitioner is stated to be Rs. 1,17,480/- against which 10% of application money i.e. a sum of Rs. 11,748/- was deposited with the application. But the petitioner was informed thereafter that he has to deposit Rs. 20,137/- as application money based on revised principal dues which has been worked out to Rs. 3,18,846/-. Faced with such a demand the petitioner decided to approach the High Court by way of the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is - 2 - that the demand is irrational, arbitrary and shocking to the conscious and there is no way the figure being recalculated can be reached. Obviously there is something amiss in the so called recalculation made on the principal dues by the Corporation. In response to the writ application a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the BSFC. Their stand is crystallized in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit. The statement made in paragraph-7 states that there was a mistake in calculation of the interest component for the period 8.9.77 to 31.3.79. Interest at the rate of 12.25 percent has been calculated against the original principal loan amount instead of 14.25 percent chargeable from the petitioner. When the application was made by the petitioner under the scheme for restructuring, the same mistake was discovered and the petitioner was advised accordingly. Petitioner’s counsel thereafter relies on a decision rendered in the case of M/s Naresh Metal Industry vrs. The Managing Director and another reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 453 where in a similar circumstances and situation the Court came to a considered opinion that it would be impetuous on the part of the respondents Corporation to proceed and demand additional payment of outstanding dues after more than three decades on the ground of mistake on their part or miscalculation of interest relating to the year 1977-79. The law having been settled in this regard in the above noted case which has been upheld even by the LPA Bench, - 3 - the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the demand made upon him in terms of annexure-4 dated 17.4.2009. The same stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. The respondents will proceed with the application of the petitioner on the basis of the application money already deposited on the initial principal amount worked out in this regard. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)