9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 27,000 for the aforesaid purpose and, as per the terms and conditions of the loan, the petitioner was to repay the said loan over a period of seven years by 12 half yearly instalments with interest at the rate of 13 per cent and rebate of 2 per cent per annum for timely payment. After receiving the said loan of Rs. 27,000 the petitioner installed a rice huller in his premises. Since, the petitioner defaulted in repaying the loan and interest as per the terms and conditions of the loan granted by the OSFC, the OSFC seized the unit of the petitioner and thereafter advertised in the Oriya daily The Samaj dated 28-2-1993 for auction sale of the said unit of the petitioner. There was no response from any purchaser pursuant to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-2004 that since the unit of the petitioner had already been handed over to Opp. Party No. 5 the Misc. Case had become infructuous. In the said Order dated 9-2-2004, however, the Court observed that transfer of the unit of the petitioner and handing over the same to the Opp. Party No. 5 will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 3. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, Mr. Swain vehemently submitted that the unit of the petitioner has been sold at a meagre price of Rs. 1,05,000 though, the value of the said unit of the petitioner will be more than Rs. 2,50,000. He referred to the affidavit of one Budhia Sethi filed in Court as Annexure-11 to show that the local market value of the unit of the petitioner was more tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 that in response to the advertisement made in daily The Samaj dated 28-2-1993 fixing the auction date on 11-3-1993 no offer was received by the OSFC except the representation of the petitioner that on payment of Rs. 3,000 the unit may be released in his favour and thereafter suitable instalments may be fixed to enable the petitioner to repay the loan, but the competent authority who was holding the auction on behalf of the OSFC refused to accept the said offer of the petitioner. He further submitted that it will be clear from the averments made in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4 that the petitioner was asked to attend the negotiation meeting to be held on 26-5-1995 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 5 adopted the arguments of Mr. Patnaik and also referred to the affidavits filed by Sri Brundaban Sahoo and Sri Budhia Sethi in Court in which they have stated that they have no intention nor capacity to purchase the unit of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 respectively. 5. In Haryana Financial Corpn. s case ( supra ) the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn. [1993] 2 SCC 279 and other cases held : "17. The aforesaid guidelines issued in Mahesh Chandra s case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of power by the Financial Corporation contained in section 29 of the Act by requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing who has said that each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect and in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another . 7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we may now examine the facts of the present case. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he defaulted in making payments of the instalments towards the repayment of the loan as well as the interest. Hence, the OSFC in exercise of its power under section 29 of the Act was justified in taking over the unit of the petitioner. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny amount to release the unit of the petitioner and instead requested for release of the unit in his favour and for fixing up the instalments for re-payment of the amount, but the Committee rejected the said request. Only after the OSFC failed to get a purchaser in response to his advertisement and the petitioner failed also to get a purchaser for the unit that negotiation was made with Opp. Party No. 5 who agreed to purchase the unit of the petitioner on payment of cash of Rs. 1,05,000 and the OSFC issued the sale letter dated 19-6-1995 in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid facts show that the OSFC has sold the unit of the petitioner at the highest possible price that it would get and that the sale was made in favour of the Opp. Party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
