IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3955 of 2009 M/S KRISHNA CRUSHER UDYOG through its Proprietor Krishna Chand Jaiswal son of late Bhagwan Pd. Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Sah Patii, (Bajaj Patti) P S Motihari town, District – East Champaran. Versus THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, through its Board of Directors, Fraser Road, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna. 3. The Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Bhawanipur Zirat, Motihari. ------ For the petitioner : Mr D K Tandon. For the BSFC : Mr. Girijesh Kumar. ----------- 05. 08.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. The present predicament of the petitioner is his own creation. There is no dispute that financial assistance to the tune of 3.33 lacs was taken by the petitioner vide an agreement dated 10.12.1987. After the same was paid to the petitioner for the industry in question, no repayment has been made at any point of time. Defaults have been committed over many a years which compelled the respondent authorities to initiate proceeding under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Despite initiation of a proceeding the respondent authorities failed to conclude it and it became an open ended sale notice. It is not denied that two O.T. S. Schemes came to be floated by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner tried to show some interest by buying application and filling it but when it came down to meeting the obligation created under the O T S scheme no steps were taken by him. The matter was allowed to lapse - 2 - and the so-called golden opportunity offered to the petitioner to settle the dispute was also lost. Looking at the conduct of the petitioner and his lack of interest in settling the outstanding dues, respondents have finally sold the unit to a buyer for a sum of Rs.20.31 lacs in the month of April, 2009. The writ therefore came to be filed at the time challenging such action of the respondents. As of today the money is lying with the respondent Corporation but the sale as well as possession of the property has not been handed over because of the intervention by this Court at one point of time. Submission is made at the bar that it is not open to the respondents now to claim the outstanding dues because limitation must have set in when the loan was sanctioned for the period of 7 years and that too way back in 1987. The petitioner should be shown leniency in the matter and O T S scheme should be extended and made available to him and he is now willing to meet the obligation under law created by the Corporation. The Corporation themselves have allowed the matter to spin out of hand by not settling the dispute within the time frame. But from the pleadings and materials and evidence which has come in the writ application there is nothing to show that petitioner had at any point of time taken any steps by paying any penny to the Corporation under the head of outstanding loan of his. No doubt some interest has been expressed by him at the time when OTS scheme came but then no further follow up action has been taken after the respondent authorities gave an offer to the petitioner - 3 - in terms of the order passed in this regard and which has been brought on record by the petitioner as annexures 2 to 5. Obviously either the petitioner does not have capacity to repay the loan or he has no interest in settling the loan. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner in detail the matter was adjourned on 1.12.2009 giving final opportunity to the petitioner to come with a categorical stand on the issue. The only offer which is being made at the bar is that he is now willing to pay the amount decided by the O T S Scheme, not availed by him and that too in instalment. The Court is not convinced with the bonafide of such an offer. The petitioner had been given an opportunity to take back his property at the time of sale but since that has not been done it will be unfair on the part of this Court now to keep the matter pending any further. The money offered by the purchaser is lying with the Corporation for the last 8 months. This time the matter is allowed to rest. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. The respondent Corporation are free now to accept the offer made by the purchaser and take consequential action since there is no other means and method for effecting the recovery of the loan granted to the petitioner and is outstanding till date. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)