- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order restraining the appellant from selling the cold-storage in question by inviting tenders and setting out certain other terms for repayment of the loan advanced to the respondent.
(2.) From the facts as they emerged on the record it appears that a loan of Rupees 25,00,000/- was sanctioned to the plaintiff for the construction of a cold-storage against which only a sum of Rs. 14,60,300.00 had been advanced to the plaintiff by 31/03/1989. Up to 30th Sept., 89 a sum of Rs. 8,02,208.00and odd had also become due by way of interest. On being approached by the plaintiff the repayment of the outstanding loan was re-scheduled by the appellant vide its letter dated 13-7-1988 according to which interest amounting to 4.50 lacs was repayable in four instalments. The first two instalments were due in Feb., 1989 and August, 1989 but the plaintiff failed to pay them. The plaintiff does not deny having taken the loan of Rs. 14.30 and admittedly he has also not complied with the conditions of reschedulement permitted by the appellant. It is also obvious from the record that he did not comply with the conditions subject to which temporary injunction was granted on 14-1-1990. The order ultimately stood vacated due to non-compliance of its condition.
(3.) The application playing for temporary injunction by the plaintiff was founded on two main grounds. Firstly, it was alleged that the defendant Corporation cannot realise its dues by sale of plaintiff's property by inviting offers through tender and can do so only by sale through public auction. Secondly it was urged that the entire loan amount had not been advanced to the plaintiff and, therefore, the repayment instalment fixed under the original agreement had become irrelevant and unenforceable. To allow the plaintiff to pay back the loan, the instalments had to be fixed again in accordance with the amount of loan actually advanced. Both these grounds have found acceptance by the trial Court.;