IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.19470 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2008 Kams Leatherware Limited. -----Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: Prayer in this petition is for issuing a direction to the respondents to waive the interest charged in the term loan account w.e.f. 14.10.1994, the date on which the unit of the petitioner was taken over by the Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Further prayer is to credit the realizable value of the unit on the date of taking over. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner earlier filed C.W.P. No.10680 of 2000, which was dismissed as infructuous on the statement of counsel for the petitioner, after it was stated on behalf of the Corporation that notice for open C.W.P. No.19470 of 2008 auction will be issued and the sale will be in open auction. Thus, the petitioner was satisfied if the sale was by open auction. No other point was pressed, though open to the petitioner, including the points now raised in this petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed C.W.P. No.1471 of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the auction, which had already taken place. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No.3579 of 2008 and after some arguments, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the auction sale in pursuance of auction notice dated 23.2.2008. It has not been mentioned in the petition as to what happened after 11.3.2008, except that on 23.10.2008, another advertisement/notice for selling the unit by inviting sealed offers, to be opened on 17.11.2008, has been issued. In the auction notice dated 23.10.2008 (Annexure P-11), it has also been stated that the borrowers/guarantors could also join the sale proceedings or bring other parties to bid for open auction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest charged was illegal. The said issue cannot be gone into at this stage after three writ petitions filed by the petitioner had been dismissed, though the petitioner had opportunity to raise this objection. However, we make it clear that if any amount has been charged 2 C.W.P. No.19470 of 2008 in excess, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise such an issue at any appropriate forum, other than this Court. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 17, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3