ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. NARSINGH CH NAYAK
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)We have heard Shri Shambu Prasad singh, advocate for the appellant. The respondent no. 1 who was the writ petitioner before the High Court has not appeared despite service of notice.
(2.)The respondent no. 1 had purchased the truck bearing no. ORY-2785 utilising the loan taken from the Orissa State Financial corporation-the appellant herein. As he defaulted in depositing the installments fixed under the agreement, the corporation seized the vehicle exercising its power under sections 29 and 30 of the state Financial Corporation Act. The respondent filed the writ petition registered as OJC No. 201 of 1991 assailing the notice issued under section 30 of the Act and for quashing the notice for auction of the seized vehicle, etc. In the said proceeding, the High Court passed an interim order on 14.1.1991 which reads as under:
"Heard the petitioner in person. It is stated by the petitioner, who appears before us, that the sale of the truck bearing registration number ORY 2785 is fixed for tomorrow. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we direct stay of confirmation of sale, if sale is held. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 25. 000. 00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) with the corporation by tomorrow. The matter shall be taken up for further orders on Tuesday (22.1.1991). "
(3.)The respondent failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 as ordered by the High court. The corporation went ahead with auction as scheduled and the vehicle was sold to one Shri Navkishore Bhuyan for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. 00, The sale was confirmed on 28.1.1991. The writ petitioner again approached the High Court for an interim order for releasing the vehicles. By the order dated 8.2.1991, the High Court issued the following directions;
"The opposite parties are directed to show cause as to why they shall not be suitably punished for having deliberately flouted the court's order by putting the vehicle into auction sale notwithstanding the interim order of this court. They should also show cause as to why they refuse to accept the money that was offered by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this court dated 14.1.1991. Along with the show cause, the opposite party no. 2 should appear in person in the court on 27.2.1991. In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained from taking any further action for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.