9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently direct the 1st respondent to pay 24% interest on the said amount from 31-3-1992 till the date of delivery of possession of the assets of M/s. Dhakshin Fabrics Limited and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. By order dated 30-8-2001, the above payer was amended in WPMP No. 21339 of 2001, which is as follows : "............to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not handing over the possession of the assets of M/s. Dhakshin Fabrics Limited, pursuant to the statutory sale effected by the 1st respondent under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1956 as h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner is that though the sale was confirmed in his favour the 1st respondent has not handed over the possession of the unit up to May 1993 on the ground that the 3rd respondent, State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundary, Hyderabad (for short, 'the 3rd respondent-SBH') did not give necessary clearance to the 1st respondent being one of the financier of the unit. It is further stated that at that juncture, the 3rd respondent-SBH filed WP No. 6865 of 1993 challenging the sale confirmed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the unit was sold for an under price though it would fetch lucrative price. It is further stated that this Court by order dated 3-7-1996 while dismissing the writ petition No. 6865 of 1993 directed the 1st res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om delivery of the possession of the unit on the ground that the unit fell in arrears to the 4th respondent, is illegal and without any authority of law and the petitioner could not challenge the same as the order was passed against the 1st respondent. The counsel also states that the petitioner is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount of Rs. 15,20,000/- paid by him from 31-3-1992 till the date of delivery of the possession of the unit as he was denied possession of the unit illegal and without any justifiable reasons. 6. It is not in dispute that the sale of the unit was confirmed in favour of the petitioner and he has paid an amount of Rs. 15,20,000/- on 31-3-1992 in terms of the sale conditions. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
