IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.10230 of 2011
M/S Maurya Jute Industries Pvt.Ltd.
Versus
The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate.
For respondent nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate.
———
02/ 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd.
and its authority. No one appears on behalf of the State of Bihar
and its authorities.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the demand notice issued by the Bihar State Credit &
Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Corporation’ for the sake of brevity) and also challenging notice
published by the respondent-Corporation in Newspaper dated
10.06.2011 fixing 30.06.2011 as the date of auction sale of the
assets mortgaged by the petitioner and for other ancillary reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 dealing in manufacturing activity for production of jute yarn
and on his application a term loan of Rs.70.00 lacs was sanctioned,
out of which only Rs.45.00 lacs was paid to the petitioner and the
remaining amount is yet to be paid. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that due to non payment of the said
amount, business of the petitioner could not take off and he was
-2-
unable to refund the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
avers that according to demand notice a total sum of Rs.1406.45
lacs was demanded, out of which Rs.1350.66 lacs was the interest.
He further contends that possession had already been taken by the
respondent-Corporation as far back as in the year 2002 and hence
the question would arise as to whether during the period of
possession of the Corporation, the interest can be validly levied.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Corporation submits that since 2002 several notices for one time
settlement has been repeatedly sent by the Corporation to the
petitioner, but the petitioner has not responded and has come before
this court only after the impugned notice has been published in the
newspaper. He further submits that whether the order of the
Certificate Officer of the Corporation dated 13.03.2002 or the
action taken by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State
Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the year 2002 still remains
unaffected is the matter for which he has to get instruction from
their client for which he seeks some adjournment.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
prima facie appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has been
able to make out a case for consideration by this court in detail after
receipt of the counter affidavit which the respondents may file
expeditiously.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation
submits that he will file a counter affidavit after seeking
-3-
instructions within a week.
7. Put up this case under the heading ‘Admission’ at
10.30 P.M. within top five cases on 07th of July, 2011.
8. Till further orders, the respondents-Corporation and
its authority are restrained from effecting any sale of the assets of
the petitioner-company in the light of the impugned sale notice.
(S. N. Hussain, J.)
Sunil