:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO. 12 OF 2006 SICOM Ltd ...Plaintiffs Versus Nufab India Ltd and Ors. ....Defendants ====== Mr.A.Kamate with Mr.K.G.Desai i/by. M/s.Kartikeya and Associates, for the petitioners. J.Mitra with S. Marathe i/by. Devan Dwarkadas and Parthas Adv. for the Respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is SICOM Ltd which is carrying on business of financing of Industrial Undertakings in the State of Maharashtra. Prior to 1994, it was a fully owned Government company. Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra disinvested its holding to the extent of 59%. Now, the State holds 49% of the share holding of the petitioner. By virtue of the Notification issued by the Government of India under Section 46(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, the provisions :2: :2: :2: of the SFC Act become applicable to the petitioner,. 2. It has been stated that the Respondent no.1 is a Public Limited Company. The Original Respondent no.2 was a Director and therefore upon his death and also that of his wife, the Respondent nos.2(a) and 2(b) are the surviving heirs and legal representatives. It has been stated before me that the Directors of the First Respondent had guarantied the repayment of the loan and there is a guarantee of respondent no.4, both of which are valid, subsisting and binding. My attention has been invited to the Clauses in the same and it has been urged that the liability of the respondents is proved. 3. The facts are set out in the petition itself and there is no dispute with regard thereto. The First Respondent approached for financial assistance and the loan was sanctioned. The loan was of Rs. 700 lacs. The loan was secured by a Deed of Mortgage. The movable and immovable properties have been thus mortgaged. The Deed of Mortgage dated 20.2.1998 has been duly executed. Thereafter the guarantees are referred to in para-4 of the petition. Copies of these :3: :3: :3: documents including the letter of Sanction are annexed to the petition. It has been stated that there are several defaults in repayment of the principal amount and interest and that is how Demand Notice was issued. The respondents requested the petitioners for rescheduling of the amount and that is how the Deed of Modification was executed, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit-C. There is default in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Deed of Modification also. It in such circumstances, that the Recall Notice was issued and thereafter the amounts were demanded. All these facts are referred to in para 9 to 13 of the petition. It has been stated that as on 30.11.2003 the claim is of Rs.3,98,27,195/- alongwith interest. The petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act. This provision could be invoked without prejudice to the right to invoke other provisions. There is no denial of this legal position. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the petition is maintainable and this court has the jurisdiction to pass the necessary orders. There is no Affidavit-in-reply filed in reply to the petition. There were certain without :4: :4: :4: prejudice proposals for settlement. But I am informed that the proposal submitted by the Respondents is not acceptable. The dues according to the petitioners is in the vicinity of Rs.9 crores and above, whereas, the Respondents would urge that the outstanding cannot exceed more than three and half crores. The Respondents proposal for settlement has not been accepted. 4. I have heard Mr.Kamat appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Mitra appearing for the respondents. The respondents do not dispute their liability to pay the sums under the Deed of Mortgage and the Guarantees. They do not controvert any of the statements and averments in the Misc.Petition. There is no Affidavit in reply and Mr.Kamat has rightly placed reliance upon the Modification Deed to contend that the liability is admitted. 5. In the above circumstances, a case is made out for this court exercising its powers under Section 31(1) of the SFC Act. The principal amount and the quantum of interest has also not been disputed. An :5: :5: :5: Affidavit has been filed by Respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and barring stating that the liability is not as stated in the petition and the figures and statements of the petitioner are misleading, nothing has been pointed out as to how the petitioners are guilty of suppressing any material facts. There is no material to prove that the outstanding sum and interest would be as per the computation of the respondents. Despite this, in para-8 of his Affidavit it is stated that the Respondents are willing to pay Rs.2 crores in full and final settlement. 6. In the above circumstances, Mr.Mitra could not dispute that the liability is admitted. The request is to mark the claim as satisfied after accepting the lesser sum. That is between the parties. Mr.Kamat after taking instructions makes a statement that the proposal as submitted on Affidavit had been placed before the concerned authorities and they are not approving the same. In such circumstances, when the respondents proposal is not accepted and the liability is not disputed, interest of justice would be subserved if the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer :6: :6: :6: clause (a). There shall be no costs. Petition allowed accordingly. sd/- *********