Soafff High Court · 2005

M/sPolyPaeklndia Through Proprietor & Promotor Shri Sandeep J&in S/o S.K. Jain ^ed about 31 years, Nayapara Jagdalpur, Pr^entty resklent ofB/248/3ShailendraNagar, Raipur (C.G.) Vereus

M.P. Finance Corporation through Managing Directorlndore (M.P.) M.P. Finance Corporation ttirough General Manager, Indore (M.P.) lyi.P.FinanceCorporationftrough Deputy General ManagerZonal of Rce, 19 Central Avenue (West) Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.) AdditionalTahsildar(RecoveTy)& Depufy General Manager, MPFC Raipur Zone, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr^tehish Shrivastava, teamect counsel for the petifoner. Mr. P. Dhwakar. Sr. ^lvocatewith Mr. P.R. Patankar, tornedcounsel forthe respondents. ORALORDER (Passedon 22nd February 2005.) Madhya Pradesh FinanceCorporation, the respondents herein, in response to anapplication made by the petitioner, an industrial unit, by te order dated 25-02-1991, sanctloned a loan of Rupees three lacs for purchase of machines and construction of buildings for establishing an industrial unit The pettBoner could not repay the loan amount with the interest accrued thereon in terms of schedule of repayment. That led to the Corporation resorting to the procedure provided under SecGon 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 (for short "the Acf}. The l^m iia« in 2- property was brought to sale. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to bring fte bidderefbr purchasing the sutgect property in the year 1995. Although an offer was received, that was only for a sum of Rs.

2.05 lacs. The pleadings taid before ttie Court would show that ttie Board of Directors of the Corporation took a policy decision that the property brought to sale should not be sotd for tess than Rs. 3 lacs. The retum filed ISlff" by the Corporation, as could be seen from paras 17 to 21, would show that the Corporation had taken steps to get the better offers but it faited in its attempts. Under the cireumstances, the Corporation issued tetter dated 13-11-2000 directing ttie petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 8.49 lacs towards principal as we!l as interest accrued on the prineipal amount. At that stage, being aggrieved by the above demand raised by the Corporation, this writ petition was fiied. (2) I have heard leamed counsel for the parties. The only ground uiged by the leamed counsel for the petitioner for assailing the impugned demand is that the Corporation is that the Corporation ought to have sold the property for asum of Rs. 2.05 lacs in the year 1^5 'rtselT response to the sale advertisement issued in the newspapers i.e. Nav Bharat and Dainik Bhaster and ought to have taken steps to recover the outstanding balance amount from the petitioner. In a matter like this, the petitioner-lonee cannot dictate modes or methods by which the Corporation should have recovered the outstanding loan amount with interest from the petitioner-borrower. The decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on 26-09-1995 that the property brought to sale should not be sold for a prince less than Rs. 3 lacs could not be faulted with on any rational ground. The fact remains that the petih'oners has utterly failed to repay the loan amount with interest in accordance with -3- the schedute of repayment. It is quite often said by the Courts tftat the public money advanced by the pubtic Corporation like ttie respondent- Corporation should not be allowed to be in the private pockets to the peril of public interest. In that view of the matter, no exception could be taken to the coereive steps taken by the Madhya Rradesh Finance CorporaUon nor is there any legal ground to attack the demand now raised by the Corporaflon with the petitioner to repay a sum of Rs. 8.49 lacs. The writ petition is totally devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No coste. Sd/- ChiefJustice fyfl'