AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioner, a partnership firm consisting of two brothers as partners, applied for a loan to the respondent-Financial Corporation for Mushroom Project of Rs. 36.00 lacs in July, 1995. The loan application was accepted on 15.2.1996 and a loan of Rs. 35.10 lacs was sanctioned and thereafter disbursed. However, the petitioner failed to maintain the financial discipline and claims to have suffered losses despite extension of moratorium periods. This resulted in recall of the loan by the respondent-Corporation by letter dated 19.5.1998, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 39,12,556/-. There were certain other communications exchanged inter se parties thereafter. The petitioner made an endeavour to liquidate its liability by locating a buyer for Rs. 37.00 lacs towards the primary security consisting of plant and machinery and in June, 1999 found the buyer for the said amount. The buyer, however, backed out. Thereafter the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.1.2000 (Annexure R-1) to the respondent-Corporation referring to the aforesaid fact and thereafter observing, inter-alia, as under:-
After persistent efforts and at a great loss to ourselves we have found a buyer for land and building. We have requested you to release the primary security on payment of Rs. 30 lacs. During the course of running of the unit we have suffered huge losses and we do not have any money to pay. If the permission is kindly granted we will be able to liquidate major portion of the dues of the corporation and reduce our interest burden substantially. We will be able to reduce our continuing losses which have and are ruining us financially.
The primary security was released and the petitioner deposited Rs. 30.00 lacs. This of-course did not liquidate the liability.
The grievance raised in the present petition is from the rejection of the case of the petitioner for One Time Settlement and according to the petitioner, it is entitled to the same. One of the essential condition of being eligible for the same is that the amount recoverable shall not be less than 75% of the realisable value of primary and collateral security available with the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner pleads that the primary security of the loan and building were sold by them for Rs. 14.00 lacs as per a document while the balance Rs. 16.00 lacs was made available by the petitioner from its own sources and, thus, for calculating the realisable value, it is the figure of Rs. 14.00 lacs which should be taken into account by the respondent-Corporation and not of Rs. 30.00 lacs.
The aforesaid plea cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner itself has proposed to sell the primary security at Rs. 37.00 lacs in 1999 and ultimately it was sought to be sold in the year 2000 for Rs. 30.00 lacs. The figure of Rs. 14.00 lacs nowhere appears in the communication of the petitioner dated 21.1.2000, which was clear in its terms. As to how the petitioner arranged its internal affairs and managed to show the sale consideration of only Rs. 14.00 lacs is best left unanswered, but suffice it to say that the respondent-Corporation released the primary security on a clear understanding of its value at Rs. 30.00 lacs.
In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition.
We may, however, note in the end that in the prayer clause, a reference has also been made while seeking relief of quashing of various annexures, including Annexure P-23, which do not pertain to the petitioner but to the mother of the partners Smt. Basant Kohli, the guarantor. We are not dealing with this annexure for the reason that the same found subject matter of adjudication in a separate writ petition filed before us being CWP No. 17794 of 2004 filed by Smt. Basant Kohli. The petition is, thus, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.