- (1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by M/s. Money Chemicals (P) Ltd. containing the prayers that the notice dated 7.8.95 under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 issued by the Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation (Annexure-24) be quashed and that the order dated 20.6.95 passed by the General Manager Rehabilitation, U.P. Financial Corporation be also quashed.
(2.) In short the facts are that the petitioner was financed to the extent of Rs. 28 Lacs on 26-4-90. This capital has drawn an interest of Rs. 22 lacs and odd and the present liability of the petitioner has swelled to Rs. 50,94,271.44 paise. The Corporation issued a notice under Section 29 of the aforesaid Act on 14.11.1994, the true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-18 to this writ petition. The petitioner challenged the said notice in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10692 of 1995, which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, the relevant portion of the order of which Bench is quoted below for ready reference : "The contention of the petitioner is that rehabilitation package proposal as indicated in the letter dated 17.5.1993 (Annexure 13-A to the writ petition) is pending with respondent No. 3 and that without awaiting decision thereon, the respondents have issued notice under Section 29 and further issued an advertisement to sell the petitioner-unit. Upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing respondent No. 3 to decide the aforesaid rehabilitation proposal made by the petitioner by a speaking order within two months from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith the said proposal is produced before him by the petitioner, who undertakes to produce the same within ten days from today. Until decision on such proposal further proceedings pursuant to Section 29 notice and the advertisement (Annexure-18 to the writ petition) will not be taken up against the petitioner. If the steps as aforesaid are not taken, then the stay order will stand vacated." By the order dated 20.6.95 the Corporation by adverting to the letters dated 17.5.93 and 20-4-95 as also the copy of order of this Court, referred to above, indicated its following decision to the petitioner : (1) ........... (2) ............ (3) ............ (4) That the decisions at Udyog Bandhu at various occasions, also did not yield anything and company again failed to manage working capital from other Bank inspite of NOC from Union Bank of India. (5) That as there were heavy over-dues against the company, Notice under Section 29 of SFC's Act was issued on 14.11.94. After issuance of notice though you requested for rehabilitation of unit but no concrete proposal was submitted by you. (6) That on your request dated 19.11.94 and 24.3.94 a One-Time Settlement was approved in your case which was communicated to you vide our letter dated 29.3.95. (7) That instead of honouring the OTS you have gone to the Court and submitted an old proposal dated 17.5.93 for rehabilitation of unit. (8) That after detailed scrutiny of the case it has been observed that there is no chance of revival of unit and the reliefs & assistance sought by you cannot be extended as some of these are beyond RBI guidelines and also beyond Govt. norms. Resources of the Company are also poor. No working capital assistance is available to the company. (9) That even if we provide all facilities as per RBI Guidelines to the Company, it shall not be able to serve the huge liabilities of the Corporation, which shall not be a viable unit. In view of facts narrated above your request for rehabilitation dated 29.4.95 is rejected."
(3.) It appears that after rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, the Corporation has directed by its order dated 7.8.95 for taking over the physical possession of M/s. Money Chemical (P) Ltd. It is aforesaid Order dated 7.8.95 which has been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Vivek Kumar Birla, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at length in support of this writ petition. He has also filed two supplementary affidavits, which have been taken on the record. Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the U. P. Financial Corporation has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties and has been heard in opposition. Mr. H.R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of U.P. State has also been heard in opposition.;