The High Court
Case Details
()^ rr^-1/1' /^^ ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OP JUOICaTORE AT BILBSPua C .G . (Writ Efetitlon No. -i-3%';—.of2002) K Petltloners! 1. M/5 Yadav Re-Rollers Private Limlted, a company Incorporated un<3er the Companie. Act, 1956, hsvlng office at 17-B, Llght InduStrial Area,Bhllai, Distt.Durg. » 2. Shri Lal Bshadur Ya<3av, s/o Late Rajpati -Yafiav, R/o 17-.B, Light Itadustrial Area, Bh^lal, Distt.Durg. .^•'^ 5. .--^y^. ^•'y^r .ri^\'\.'' i^y..^" ^'^'^ •^ 'ares, Bhllal, Distt.Durg. Bahadur Yadav» s/o Late , R/o l7-E,Light; Industrisl
Legal Reasoning
4. Shri Vinay Kumar VsQav, s/o Shri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, R/o l7-B,Light Industrial Ares,Bhllai,Distt.Durg. 5. shrl Vinod Kumar YaSav, s/o Shri Vijay Bahadur, R/o 17-B, Light In<3ustrial Area, Bhllal, Qistt.Durg. 6. Shri Vljay Behadur Yadav, s/o Lgte Rajpatl Yadav, 8/0 Gsffar Colony, Chhawsnj. Roaci, Bhllai,Distt.Durg. 7. Shri Baldeo Prasad S./o Shri MgdhoSao jaiswal, R/o Ramanujganj Roa<3» Ambikapur, Dlstt. Surgujs (G.G.). Versus. ndents: l./M/s Madhya Pradesh Pinancisl Gorporatlon, inaoroorated under State B'inancial Gor-poratlo] f Act, 1951, having Head Qffice at Finance House, Agra Mumbal Roftd,In<3ore and Branch offlce at Hlgh Gourt °'oa<3, Bilaspur, C.G. _- 2. The Golleotor, Indore, M.P. 3. The Golleator, Gorakhpur, U.P. i^?"'^ 4. Tjie Tahslldar Gola Bazar, Oorakhpur, U.P. V.^'' Petitlon under Articles 226- and 227 of_the Cbnstltutl_on of India. 1950. ^^ «*a^wmiaai»rf^ffii ^^^,:;':ps :S^^fi-'^:SS Si^ '^ ^\C7 ^ ,A ('^ nii8iiRI C.G. State Industrial Development Corporation, through Managing Director, New LIC Commercial Complex, Pandari, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)" II :l SSs^ ;ii: •^^y^. l^i "i '>... Y^^-' / ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.1382 of 2002 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Vs. M/s Yadav Re-Rollers Private Limited and others Chhattisgarh State Industrial Corporation Development through its Managing Director and others Wjit EetitionunderArticle_226/^2^_ofthe Constitution oflndia Present:- Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Kashif Shakeel, counsel for respondent No. 1. Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shriyastava, J. ORAL ORDER (10-09-2013) This is second round of litigation between the parties. The petitioners had taken loan from the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation, i.e. predecessor of the respondent No.l-Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation. On account of non- repayment of the loan, dispute arose between the parties. When the matter was brought to the Court by filing writ petition by the petitioners, writ petition was
Decision
finally disposed off recording compromise between the parties and payment of the amount under scheme of settleraent on terms and conditions stated in the order. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had complied with all the terms and conditions of the settleraent, which is clear from the details of payment raade by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as an amount of Rs.1,97,000/- is concerned, the said amount was payable to the petitioners under Central Investment Subsidy Scheme and at the instance of the respondent authorities, communicated vide letter dated 13-07-2000, the petitioners submitted provisional money receipt, however, the certificate from District Industry and Trade Centre was not issued. Therefore, because of this reason, only part payment of Rs.1,97,000/- was not received by the respondent-Corporation from the Central Government. He submits that even this aspect would have been informed to the petitioners with a specific demand that this balance amount of Rs.1,97,000/- should also be paid by the petitioners, the petitioners would have paid the amount in cash. Therefore, later on, if the respondent-Corporation does not receive subsidy amount, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed default in fulfilling terms and conditions of the settlement under the order of the Court. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.l submits that the petitioners was under an obligation to ensure that the entire settlement amount of Rs.28 lakh is paid to the respondent authorities within the time and in the raanner specified in the order passed by the High Court. He submits that the amount of subsidy was actually not received by the respondent from the Central Government, because the petitioner's unit was not functioning continuously for a period of five years and therefore, / the State level committee cancelled the petitioner's registration and therefore, the effect was that within the time stipulated by the High Court, the amount deposited by the petitioner fell short of Rs.1,97,000/-, therefore, in these circumstances, the respondent No.l revived the loan case. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties submitted that looking to the fact fhat very small amount was found to be short and looking to the circumstances, in which, fhis shortage happened, the matter can again be looked into by the competent authority with the specific point of view taking into consideration the circuinstances, in which, Rs.1,97,000/- could not come to the account of the respondent-Corporation. 5. I am. of the view that the peculiar circum.stances, in which, default occurred, needs to be considered by the respondent- corporation. This is so because even the respondent No.l also wrote a letter to the petitioners vide Annexure P-7 with a request to submit money receipt as also certificate from District Industry and Trade Centre regarding continuously functioning of Unit for a period of five years from the date of production. On account of non- submission of certificate from the District Industry and Trade Centre, the respondent No.l could not disburse the amount of central subsidy. 6. In view of above, fhe respondent No.l is directed to look into the entire aspect of the matter and also consider whether the circumstances justify non-payment of Rs.1,97,000/- within the time stipulated by the High Court. If after taking into consideration 4 <T all these circumstances, the respondent No.l-Corporation forms an opinion that the default on the part of the petitioners was not deliberate and due to some other circumstances beyond its control, the respondent No.l-Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioners of settleraent by receiving the balance amount of Rs.1,97,000/- along with the aruount of interest, which is payable by the petitioners, at the market rate. Needless to emphasize, if the decision is against the petitioners, it would be open for the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. Till the matter is decided, no coercive steps shaU be taken by the respondent No.l- Corporation against the petitioners. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumanf1