IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20623 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 10, 2011. M/s Sigma Industries .....Petitioner versus Punjab Financial Corporation .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.V.K.Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Pardeep Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent-Punjab Financial Corporation (for short 'the Corporation) under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioner-Industry who is stated to be an auction purchaser and has entered into the sale agreement dated 10th December, 1996 (Annexure P-2), that it has approached this Court. 2] When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench on 8.12.2008, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that the entire amount, as demanded by the respondent-Corporation, will be paid by the petitioner C.W.P.No .20623 of 2008 2 within one year. The payment will be without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner at any appropriate forum for determination of the correct amount, which, according to the petitioner, is due. The petitioner will be at liberty to sell the mortgaged property in association with the respondent- Corporation, subject to the condition that sale price is directly paid to the respondent-Corporation to the extent of its dues. If this is done, the petition will stand dismissed. The petitioner also undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lacs within ten days from today. Notice of motion for 7.7.2009. In the meanwhile, the Corporation will not proceed against the property of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking.” 3] It is the conceded position that the petitioner made no attempt to sell the property in association with the respondent-Corporation within the above mentioned stipulated period. However, in the interest of justice, this Court passed yet another order dated 8.9.2009, which reads as follows:- “Vide order dated 8.12.2008, opportunity was granted to the petitioner to sell the mortgaged property, which was purchased by him, under supervision of the respondent-Corporation. It was ordered that sale proceeds shall go to the Corporation directly. It appears that except advertising the property for sale, nothing has been done so far. Petitioner is granted one month's time to make efforts for sale of the property. If he fails to do so, the Corporation shall be at C.W.P.No .20623 of 2008 3 liberty to take back possession of the property and the order passed on the first date shall be recalled. Adjourned to 12.10.2009.” 4] Even that order has not been complied with. 5] In these circumstances, the order dated 8.9.2009 which was conditional in nature, stands revived and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The contention that Section 29 of the Act could be invoked only against the borrower and not against the auction purchaser, is de-void of any merit. I say so for the reason that firstly such an argument was available at the time of preliminary hearing but the same was never raised and/or was impliedly rejected. Secondly, in terms of the sale agreement, the petitioner was to pay a particular amount to the Corporation and thus, the petitioner will be at par with borrower entitling the Corporation to invoke the power under Section 29 of the Act. 6] Dismissed. No costs. March 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE