Rise Press vs Delhi Financial Corporation

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner claims to have taken a loan of Rs. 3,85,000/- from the Respondent in the year 1982-83 for setting up a Letter Press Printing Unit. It is further the case of the Petitioner that he took a plot of land in Shalimar Bagh Industrial Area on verbal understanding from its owner that the Petitioner till purchase will pay Rs. 2,000/- per month for the said land and set up his Unit therein and subsequently purchased the said land on General Power of Attorney basis; that the machinery and equipment installed therein was hypothecated with the Respondent; that the Respondent did not release the total of the sanctioned loan inspite of repeated reminders; that in or about the year 1986 the earlier owner of the aforesaid plot of land filed a petition for eviction of the Petitioner from the property aforesaid and colluded with the Respondent and the Respondent in pursuance to the said collusion sealed the property of the Petitioner and handed over the documents of purchase of property lying therein to the erstwhile owner; that the Petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Respondent in this regard; that the Respondent in the year 1989 threw out the machinery, stocks etc. of the Petitioner lying in the premises aforesaid and the earlier owner took possession of the premises; that the Petitioner from time to time was arrested for non-payment of the balance dues but inspite of repeated reminders of the Petitioner, the Respondent did not furnish any accounts to the Petitioner. The cause of action for the present writ petition was the notice dated 13th May, 2009 issued by the Asstt. Collector of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi informing the Petitioner that upon non-payment of Rs. 7,81,613.91p due to the Respondent, the Petitioner shall be arrested. This writ petition has been filed by the proprietor of the Petitioner in person seeking the relief of directing the Respondent to account for the assets of the Petitioner taken over and to summon all the records relating to the Petitioner in Court and to settle the accounts with the Petitioners.

Notice of the petition was issued and vide ex parte ad-interim order dated 28th July, 2009 the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner stayed. The said order has continued in force till now. On 2nd March, 2010 liberty was granted to the Petitioner to visit the office of the Respondent to explore the possibilities of out of Court settlement. The counsel for the Respondent informs that the Petitioner in the said meeting only asked for the documents and which have been provided to him.

The Petitioner appearing in person and the counsel for the Respondent have been heard.

The Respondent in its counter affidavit has denied the averments in the petition and pleaded that upon non-payment by the Petitioner of the loan amount, proceedings u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 were initiated on 10th March, 1986 and the possession of the Unit taken over on 18th September, 1986 but owing to the dispute between the Petitioner and the landlord the machinery could be taken out only after the order of eviction was passed against the Petitioner and the said machinery was disposed of in the year 2004 for Rs. 62,229/-. It is contended that the recovery notice u/s 32G of the Act has been issued for the balance amount.

The Petitioner has filed a detailed rejoinder together with the copies of the documents since made available to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, on enquiry as to the fate of the suit, informs that the same was dismissed.

Needless to state that the various disputes raised by the Petitioner arguing in person of collusion, mismanagement in sale, in taking over the assets etc; of the Respondent taking over assets beyond those hypothecated cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. I have enquired from the Petitioner whether he requires a direction for supply of any further documents by the Respondent to him. He states that the accounts of period prior to the year 1987 have not been made available to him. However a perusal of the documents filed by the Petitioner himself shows that the statement of account made available to the Petitioner is w.e.f. 1st April, 1984 i.e. from soon after the disbursement of the loan amount to the Petitioner. Need is therefore not felt to issue the said direction also.

The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable for the aforesaid reason with liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies. However to enable the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies, the interim order in this petition shall remain in force till 30th April, 2011.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits and the fora if any approached by the Petitioner shall consider the matter in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.