- (1.) THE matter came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 17.8.2011.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Private Limited Company dealing in Leather. In the present Writ Petition, they have come forward to challenge a communication dated 7.10.2010 issued by the respondent Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short 'TIIC'). In that communication, the respondent TICC after referring to the previous reminders informed the petitioner that despite their reminders and personal visits, the petitioner has not paid the amount of loan taken from the Corporation. THErefore, in the impugned notice, it was indicated that dues to the TIIC works out to Rs.1,25,62,000/- and the TIIC had decided to take possession of the Unit and they were asked to be present. Challenging the said notice, the Writ Petition came to be filed. When the matter came up on 20.10.2010, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents was directed to take notice and subsequently interim stay was ordered subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was admitted on 22.1.2011. On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 3.1.2011 in the Miscellaneous Application and also on 30.11.2010 in the main Writ Petition.
(3.) IT is seen from the records that the petitioner had availed term loan of Rs.33.75 Lakhs and also subsidy bridge loan of Rs.8.27 Lakhs on 23.1.1995 for setting up their processing unit at No.35, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore. The loan was said to be repaid in 28 quarterly instalments after a moratorium period of 18 months with interest at the rate of 3% per annum over and above SIDB/IDBI rate for refinance with a minimum of 17%$ per annum. After the moratorium given to the petitioner to repay the loan, the period of repayment started from 1.1.1998. The petitioner also gave a primary and collateral security of their property and machinery. Subsequently, when they failed to repay the loan, despite several concessions were extended to them including reduction in the rate of interest and rescheduling the principal amount, even then the petitioner had not paid the said amount and the respondent TIIC advised the petitioner to settle the amount under One Time Settlement Scheme. But the One Time Settlement offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the TIIC. Therefore, the entire amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. IT was also stated that the petitioner earlier filed the Writ Petition being W.P.No.13127 of 1997 challenging the recovery action of the TIIC but the Writ Petition was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner's repeated request for OTS was rejected by the respondents. Therefore, in order to recover the amount, Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was invoked. In the counter filed in the Miscellaneous Application, in page 5, it was averred as follows: "Accordingly, the officials of the 2nd respondent Corporation went to the factory premises for taking possession. The son of the main promoter Thiru D.Sivaprakasam of the petitioner company was also present at the factory site at the time of taking possession. The officials of the 2nd respondent Corporation took inventory of the assets, viz., machinery available in the premises and took photographs. However, the son of the main promoter prevented the officials from discharging their official duty and caused chaos with the help of their workers. The respondent Corporation requested the Village Administrative Officer to be present at the factory site. In the meanwhile the promoter's son with the help of workers locked all the entrances to the main factory hall and the VAO was not able to cross-check the inventory taken by the officials of the respondent Corporation. Hence, the officials of the respondent Corporation locked the remaining doors of the factory hall and affixed the seal and posted the security to safeguard the assets of the company under mortgage. The respondent Corporation also informed the officials of the police station concerned about the happenings at the time of taking possession of the assets in order to avoid any further untoward incidents." ;