MANAGING DIRECTOR MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. SANJAY SHANKARSA MAMARDE
LAWS(SC)-2010-7-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 09,2010

MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Appellant
VERSUS
SANJAY SHANKARSA MAMARDE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal, filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), is to the final order, dated 7th January, 2002, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the Commission") in Original Petition No. 9 of 1995. By the impugned order, the Commission has accepted the complaint preferred by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") against the Corporation and has directed the Corporation to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,84,457/- as compensation, within a period of two months from the date of the order and in case of default, to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of order till actual payment.
(2.) SUCCINCTLY put, the material facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: The complainant approached the Corporation for sanction of loan for his hotel project at Amravati. As per the project report, the capital outlay was of Rs.74.45 lakhs. The means of finance envisaged in the project report were as follows: JUDGEMENT_431_TLPRE0_2010Html1.htm The Complainant's loan proposal was approved by the Executive Committee of the Corporation on 27th May, 1992, sanctioning a term loan of Rs.30 lakhs to the complainant. Accordingly, a sanction letter along with terms and conditions of the loan was issued to the complainant on 2nd July, 1992. The material conditions of loan were as follows: "(a) The loan shall be utilised exclusively for the project as per the scheme approved by MSFC and the specific purposes for which the same is sanctioned. (b) The loan shall be disbursed by MSFC in one lump sum or in instalments as and when the said purposes are fulfilled or at the entire discretion of the Corporation or may be refused if in the opinion of the Corporation, the purpose for which the full loan has been sanctioned are not properly fulfilled. (c) The loan will be disbursed either for acquisition of fixed assets under the said scheme or for reimbursement of funds utilised for acquisition of fixed assets taken for security under the said scheme. (d) A minimum margin of 55% over all on fixed assets shall be maintained during the currency of the loan. (e) The loan shall be repaid within a period of 8 years by 13 half yearly instalments commencing from the end of 2nd year of disbursement of the first instalment of the loan. The amount of each instalment repayable being about 1/13 of the amount sanctioned regardless of the amount disbursed. (f) The interest shall be charged @ 22% p.a. and the same shall be payable quarterly on the total loan and the same shall be charged from the date of disbursement of first instalment of the loan." Additionally, it was also agreed that the loan amount would be disbursed depending on the progress of the work in accordance with a set time schedule. The progress of the construction work was required to be evaluated by the valuer approved by the Corporation. The said conditions were accepted by the complainant. Pursuant to complainant's request vide his letter dated 2nd September, 1992, undertaking to bring entire 100% capital; filing his banker's confirmation for grant of bridge loan against subsidy i.e. (SCI) and load sanction letter from MSEB, before availing of the next disbursement, the first instalment of the loan of Rs.2,90,000/- was released by the Corporation to the complainant. On the same day, the complainant issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.30,000/- towards up-front fees to the Corporation. However, the said cheque of Rs.30,000/- was dishonoured when presented for payment. By their letter dated 15th December, 1992, the Corporation intimated the complainant that despite the release of first instalment of Rs.2.90 lakhs, he had neither submitted papers for further disbursements nor reported progress of the project and had also failed to submit Chartered Accountant's certificate showing his investment. Subsequently, a valuation report dated 7th January 1993, showing that a total amount of Rs.6,97,057/- (Rs.5,02,099/- as per previous valuation + Rs.1,94,958/- as per present valuation) had been spent on the construction of the hotel was filed by the complainant. According to the Corporation, despite the fact that the complainant had failed to submit complete documents, second instalment of Rs.87,000/- was released to him on 19th January 1993, after adjusting therefrom the amount of interest due in terms of the conditions of loan.
(3.) VIDE their letter dated 5th March, 1993, the Corporation requested the complainant to inform them about the progress of the project and avail the balance loan limit by submitting valuation report, Chartered Accountant's certificate towards further investment made by him for creation of fixed assets. According to the Corporation, since they had learnt that there was a proposal for laying a railway line between Amravati and Narkhed which was likely to affect the hotel project and the complainant had also defaulted in payment of interest despite repeated requests by them vide their letters dated 10th December 1993 and 24th February, 1994, they did not release further instalments of the loan sanctioned to the complainant. On the contrary, the stand of the complainant was that although by June 1993, he had spent Rs.27,25,510/- but no evaluation was done by the valuer of the Corporation and all his request for release of further instalments fell on deaf ears. All the time, the Corporation insisted on a written assurance from the railway authorities that the proposed Amravati and Narkhed railway line would not be passing through the hotel project site, before releasing the balance loan amount. Finally, vide their letter dated 5th September, 1994, the Corporation informed the complainant that the entire balance unavailed term loan of Rs.26.23 lakhs had been treated as cancelled. The said intimation was followed by a legal notice dated 18th October, 1994 by the Advocate of the Corporation, wherein it was alleged that the complainant had failed to pay the interest on the amount already disbursed to him; as on 31st March, 1994 he was in arrears by more than Rs.1 lakh as interest and he had also failed to give any alternative proposal for the hotel project as the project at the existing site was likely to be affected by new railway track from Amravati to Narkhed. The complainant was called upon to repay the entire loan amounting to Rs.5,19,726/-, the outstanding amount as on 23rd September,1994, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.