Regular Second Appeal No. 1496 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1496 of 2010 Date of decision : July 14, 2010 Haryana Financial Corporation ....Appellant versus M/s H.K.Cement Pipe Company (P) Ltd. ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by defendant Haryana Financial Corporation (HFC) after having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent – plaintiff M/s H.K. Cement Pipe Company (P) Ltd. committed the crime of taking loan from the appellant. Loan of Rs 17.40 lacs was sanctioned but loan of Rs 12.12 lacs only was disbursed. Plaintiff committed default in repayment schedule. According to plaintiff's version, he had paid Rs 17,84,694/- to the defendant and plaintiff's unit has also been sold for Rs 55.25 lacs and thus in all, plaintiff claims to have paid Rs 73,09,694/- to the appellant. Even the defendant also admits to have received Rs 17,42,403/- from the plaintiff in addition to sale proceeds of Rs Regular Second Appeal No. 1496 of 2010 -2- 55.25 lacs of the plaintiff's unit. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was not rendering accounts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not know which institution i.e. Industrial Development Bank of India or Reserve Bank of India financed the loan taken by the plaintiff from HFC because rate of interest was to vary depending on the institution financing the loan. The plaintiff also claimed certain discounts and concessions and also re-schedulement of the repayment of the loan. The plaintiff also asserted that defendant HFC has already over charged by at least Rs 10 lacs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount. The plaintiff accordingly sought rendition of accounts and recovery of excess amount, if any, found due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The stand of the defendant is that the plaintiff committed defaults in repayment of the loan. The account statement was furnished to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not entitled to re-schedulement of loan repayment nor to one time settlement. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide detailed judgment and decree dated 7.1.2005 decreed the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts and accordingly passed preliminary decree for rendition of accounts. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the Regular Second Appeal No. 1496 of 2010 -3- case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that account statement was supplied to the plaintiff. The contention is of no use to the appellant. If the defendant had supplied the account statement to the plaintiff, it is not explained as to why the appellant is reluctant to supply another copy of account statement to the plaintiff. Admittedly the appellant being statutory Corporation maintains its accounts which are also audited. It is only the defendant-appellant which knows as to which financial institution financed the loan advanced to the plaintiff and therefore, what rate of interest was to be charged and what interest rate was actually charged from the plaintiff. It is beyond comprehension as to why the defendant- appellant is so reluctant to render accounts to the plaintiff. It appears that the defendant appellant has some thing to hide and this may possibly be the only reason why the defendant preferred first appeal and then the instant second appeal. The plaintiff has a right to know the amount which was recoverable from him including interest and how the defendant has calculated the due amount. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that certain observations have been made by the courts below regarding discount in interest and concessional rate of interest and reschedulement of loan and one time settlement. However, on pointed enquiry, learned counsel for the appellant after referring to different observations of the lower courts failed to point out any such observation which may prove injurious to the interest of the defendant – appellant at the time of rendering accounts and passing of final decree. Regular Second Appeal No. 1496 of 2010 -4- It is not in dispute that the defendant-appellant is maintaining its accounts and therefore, there could not be any difficulty in rendition of accounts to the plaintiff. The instant second appeal is completely frivolous and abuse of process of the court. Such frivolous litigation particularly by State or its instrumentalities has to be curbed with heavy hand. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgments of the courts below. The appeal is completely devoid of merit and is required to be dismissed with heavy costs in view of frivolous nature of the litigation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine with costs of Rs 25,000/- to be deposited with Registry of this Court. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 14, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'