IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1372 of 2006
M/S Maha Laxmi Industries, P.S. Ghora Sahan, District East Champaran,
through its partner Mahendra Kumar Lokhotia, son of Shri Trilok Chand
Lakhotia, resident of Mohalla Balbanawa, P.S. Ghorasahan, District East
Champaran.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Bihar State Financial Corporation through its Managing Director, Fraser
Road, Patna
3. Branch Manager, B.S.F.C. Branch, Motihari
4. Shri Satya Narayan Jhunjhunwala, son of not known , resident of
Henari Bazari, Motihari, P.S. Motihari, District Motihari
... Respondents
-------------
02/ 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the sale of the petitioner-Industry effected vide memo no.
442/Z-1/01-02 dated 06.10.2011 and handing over vide memo no. 678
dated 22.12.2011 by respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity ) to
private respondent no.4 and also challenging the entire proceeding
initiated under section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation Act,
1951 ((hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) and
for directing respondent-authorities to hand over the petitioner-unit
back to its promoter partners for sale and realization of the true worth
of its assets value and to extend the One Time Settlement Scheme
brought in by respondent-authorities and for other ancillary reliefs.
3. It is not in dispute that the Corporation sanctioned
a loan of Rs. 2.76 lacs on 29.03.1983 to petitioner-unit , but,
-2-
according to the petitioner, only Rs.1.58 lacs was released and the
amount was to be refunded in twelve half yearly instalments, which
included the subsidy of Rs.23,100.00. It is also not in dispute that the
default was committed in payment of the instalments and the
respondents advertised petitioner-unit for sale and offer for purchase
was given by respondent no. 4, whereafter the Corporation issued
letter dated 06.10.2001 asking the petitioner to make the matching
offer and to make arrangements for the difference of consideration
price and balance outstanding within 21 days from the date of issue of
the order. It is also claimed that in response to the said letter the
petitioner sent letter dated 29.10.2001 to the authorities asking them to
grant one year time to effect the sale of petitioner-unit for its real
worth so that the entire due amount is liquidated.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner handed over
its unit to respondent-authorities on 30.01.2002, whereafter on
16.08.2002 a notice under section 32-G of the Act was issued to the
petitioner asking it to show cause as to why the outstanding due
amount of petitioner-unit be not realized from it. The petitioner sat
tight over the matter and on 28.06.2005 sent a legal notice to the
respondents for fresh auction and also praying for favourable order as
per One Time Settlement Scheme. The respondents replied on
23.09.2005 and the petitioner again sent a legal notice on 04.10.2005
and when nothing was done, the instant writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner.
5. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
-3-
case, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had been dilly dallying the
matter for quite a long time as it had taken loan in the year 1983, but
did not pay the instalments regularly, due to which the interest
increased many fold. Respondent-authorities took steps in the year
2001, whereafter the petitioner itself offered payment of the entire
amount within one year, which was also not done and the matter
remained pending till 2005 when fresh steps were taken by the
Corporation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
market value of the property is more than Rs. 5 lacs but it is sought to
be sold for an amount less than Rs. 3 lacs. He also relied upon two
decisions of the Apex Court in case of Gajraj Jain vrs. State of Bihar
& Ors., reported in (2004) 7 SCC 151 as well as in case of Haryana
Financial Corporation and another vrs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and
another, reported in (2002) 3 S.C.C. 496. In the said decisions, the
procedure of auction under section 32-G of the Act has been dealt
with, which, according to the petitioner, have been clearly violated by
respondent-authorities.
7. However, from the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is quite apparent that the matter had been delayed not due to
any inaction of the authorities concerned but merely because of the
delaying attitude of the petitioner who made irregular payments of the
instalments and thereafter did not take any steps for decades together.
Furthermore, when a notice under section 32-G of the Act in 2002
was served upon the petitioner, it should have filed a show cause, but
-4-
it did not file any show cause for several years. No fact with regard to
any action taken subsequent to the filing of this writ petition has been
mentioned by the petitioner.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this
case and the materials on record, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere into the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)