Hansaria. J. - (1.) M/s. Suvarna Board Mills, hereinafter, the respondent, approached the appellant seeking "bridge loan" towards State Capital Incentive and for purchase of some machineries etc. A sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was disbursed by the appellant some time in September 1990 laying down the repayment schedule. The respondent did not repay as agreed upon. A small amount of Rs. 11,588/- was once paid and cheques given thereafter bounced. In December 1990 the appellant reminded the respondent to clear arrears, but to no effect. Reminders of April and May 1991 also bore no fruit. In January 1992 the arrear on account of principal, interest and expenses became about Rs.2.5 lakhs. The appellant, a State Financial Corporation, decided to invoke power conferred by Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and did so on 7-1-92 by issuing a notice contemplated by this section stating, inter alia, that the Corporation has become entitled because of the failure and neglect of the respondent to clear the dues, to recover the entire outstanding loan amount of about Rs. 5 lakhs and called upon the respondent to pay the same by 21-1-92 failing which it was stated that the possession of the factory premises of the respondents shall be taken on 22-1-92. On payment not being made possession was taken on 22nd January. A letter was issued thereafter on 29th January stating that if the respondent was interested in getting back possession, it should clear the dues as desired earlier within 15 days. On failure to do so, the respondent was informed, the Corporation would be at liberty to dispose of the property.
(2.) The respondent approached the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution making grievance that the appellant took over possession of the factory without considering its representation made pursuant to notice of the appellant dated 7-1 92. The High Court found fault with the action taken with the aid of Section 29, not on this ground, but because, according to it before doing so a show cause notice was required to be given as to why action under Section 29 should not be taken to satisfy the requirement of natural justice. The same not having been done, in view of the High Court, notice of 7th January was quashed and the appellant was directed to restore possession. Hence this appeal by the Financial Corporation.
(3.) It has been contended before us by the learned counsel of the appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking action under Section 29, assuming that it was necessary to do so. Let it be seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a strait- jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if lie would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case.;