9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 12.58 lakhs by the first respondent Corporation starting from the year 1987 upto 1994. Petitioner has averred that he had also repaid in all about Rs. 14 lakhs in respect of the loan that he had obtained from the Corporation and had mortgaged his property bearing Municipal No. 192/A/1C/2 in Ward No. 6, Bijapur as a collateral security for the repayment of the loan. 3. It appears that the petitioner s business and industry could not prosper, that he incurred losses and as such was forced to close down the unit. It is the version of the petitioner that the machineries were in fact sold with the permission of the Corporation itself and the sale proceeds were remitted to the Corporation to be adjusted against the loan amount etc. Petitioner has averred that he had addressed a letter requesting the respondents to permit him for what is known as one-time settlement as per his letter dated 25-2-2002; that the respondents 1 and 2 had responded to such an offer; that he had been initially advised to remit 5% of the amount outstanding to consider such a proposal and even subsequently has been advised to remit 25% of a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures to the same, it is asserted that the petitioner in fact has suppressed material facts and has misrepresented the factual position before this Court, that the petitioner is not a person who is entitled for any relief at all at the hands of this court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction; that when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of the loan advanced to him by the Corporation and such defaults had necessitated the Corporation to exercise its power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ( the Act for short) and take over the unit also to sell the machineries by which a sum of Rs. 2.90 lakhs had been realised and as the dues by the petitioner remained outstanding and inspite of several notices the petitioner not having cleared the amounts, further action/sale of the mortgaged property was taken; that the action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in bringing the mortgaged property to sale is well within their powers and due to the compelling reasons in the circums-tances of the case when the petitioner was deliberately avoiding any payment and had been dragging the matter endlessly without coming up with any concre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of 25% of the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs, i.e. Rs. 1.5 lakhs, within a period of ten days from 30-1-2002 as per letter of this date, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R4. Petitioner had been further apprised that in respect of this amount, while the Corporation had received only a sum of Rs. 38,000, the balance of Rs. 1.28 lakhs had not been paid and unless it is so paid within one week, further action will be taken as per the latter dated 1-3-2002 (copy at Annexure-R5). 6. It is the assertion of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner having not paid the amount, respondents were left with no other choice but to go ahead with the sale and though the highest offer that was offered for the petitioner s unit was Rs. 6 lakhs, the bidders were invited to the office of the Corporation and by a negotiated settlement held on 19-3-2002, the offer was increased to Rs. 7,11,000 by the third respondent and the property was accordingly being sold in favour of the third respondent for this amount. The entire sale amount was received by the Corporation by 31-3-2002. The petitioner was subsequently addressed of this develop- ment also and was put on notice. Even after adjusting thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, K.S.F.C. requesting them to ensure that the interim order granted by this Court is got vacated as the interim order had come in the way of the third respondent starting her activity in the industrial unit and causing great loss and hardship to her. This respondent has also asserted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts before this Court and managed to obtain an order of stay by filing a writ petition much subsequent to the third respondent having been put in possession of the property except to the extent of the portion which the petitioner was using as a residence and had caused considerable hardship and loss to the third respondent. This respondent has also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Sri Somnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has made submissions on the same lines and has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the sale deed dated 10-8-2002 executed in favour of the third respondent cannot be made subject matter for seeking a writ of certiorari at the hands of this Court inasmuch as the sale deeds, having been executed in a proper manner and in accordance with the relevant procedures, that it is definitely not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
