AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. (Oral) - Heard the parties.
The case of the petitioners is that Bihar State Housing Cooperative Federation limited sanctioned loan of Rs. 50/- lakhs to petitioner no.1 and out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 35/- lakhs were paid to petitioner no.1 in two instalments but later on, Federation stopped making payment of remaining loan amount and even after great persuasion when Federation did not make payment of remaining loan amount, petitioners filed CWJC no.6884/1998 before this court and this court granted liberty to the petitioners to raise the dispute under section 48 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act. In the light of liberty given by this court in CWJC no.6884/1998, petitioners raised their grievance before Additional Registrar vide Dispute case no. 175/2000. The aforesaid case was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2001 observing that Federation should consider release of remaining amount sympathetically and also to give some relaxation in the interest on the loan amount. After the above stated observations of the Additional Registrar, Federation, again, sanctioned of Rs. 40/- lakhs but made payment of only Rs. 5/- lakhs and remaining amount was not paid to the petitioners. The Federation took stand that since the petitioners failed to make re-payment of loan amount, Federation stopped making payment of remaining loan amount to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to failure on the part of Federation to make timely payment of entire loan amount to the petitioners caused delay in completion of project and the petitioners suffered a lot due to non-completion of their project in time in paucity of necessary fund.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Federation submits that, no doubt, earlier Rs. 50/- lakhs was sanctioned to petitioner no.1 and admittedly, Rs. 35/- lakhs were paid to petitioner no.1 but, as a matter of fact, petitioner no.1 did not re-pay loan amount in time according to the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and thereafter, Federation stopped making payment of remaining loan amount to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Federation further submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, a demand notice was issued to the petitioners by the Federation and petitioner no.1 challenged the above stated demand notice before this court in CWJC no.4736/2012 but a coordinate bench of this court refused to interfere into the demand notice. However, coordinate bench of this court granted liberty to petitioner no.1 to raise his grievance before the Federation. Learned counsel for the Federation further submits that, as a matter of fact, Federation distributed loan amount to the Housing societies and, as a matter of fact, Federation takes loan from NABARD on interest and huge amount of loan granted by the Federation to the Housing Cooperative Societies could not be recovered as yet. He further submits that due to financial crunch Federation was dissolved by the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna vide order dated 27.08.2012 and a Liquidator has been appointed. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, this petition has become infructous.
It is an admitted position that Federation sanctioned Rs. 50/- lakhs and out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 35/- lakhs in two instalments were paid to petitioner no.1. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the then Additional Registrar suggested the Federation to release remaining loan amount to the petitioners but after that only Rs. 5/- lakhs were paid to petitioner no.1. It is the case of the petitioners that due to financial crunch and due to non-releasing of loan amount, project of petitioner no.1 could not be completed. It is also an admitted position that Federation has already been dissolved and a Liquidator has been appointed by the State Government.
Therefore, in my view, when the Federation has already been dissolved, question of grant of further loan to the petitioners does not arise. So far as point relates to recovery of loan amount with interest and damage caused to the petitioners due to non-releasing of loan amount to them is concerned, petitioners may raise the above stated point before the Liquidator within three months from today and if they do so, Liquidator shall decide the matter sympathetically in accordance with law within two months from the date of raising of the above stated points.
Thus, in the above stated terms, this petition stands disposed of.