- (1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the Judgment and Order passed on 11-10-1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Purulia in Misc. Appeal No. 19/1996.
(2.) The present petitioner with the intention to start a hotel business at Purulia took a loan of Rs. 15 lakhs from the West Bengal Financial Corporation against the securities both personal and immovable on 12-2-1988. On that date of formal agreement was also executed and an equitable mortgage in respect of land and building was also executed by the petitioner, besides his personal guarantee. On 30-9-1991 he got a further term loan of Rs. 2.72 lakhs against subsidy respectively with interest @ 19% under terms and conditions and manner of payment of interest and etc. On 6-12-1991 the petitioner applied for additional term loan of Rs. 10 lakhs. But the petitioner defaulted in payment of interest and the Default Review Committee of the Corporation directed that the petitioner should first clear the arrear interest amounting to Rs. 15,000/- approximately by 25-3-1992. The view of the Review Committee was communicated to the petitioner and on 21-9-1992 by a letter. The West Bengal Financial Corporation requested the petitioner to start a restaurant and open a few rooms of the hotel after which the proposal for additional term loan would be considered. On 17-3-1993 the petitioner requested the W.B.F.C. for issuing a loan at least of Rs. 5 lakhs otherwise it was impossible for him to start the restaurant. Then on 24-5-1993 notice under Section 30 of the W.B.F.C. Act was served upon the petitioner. On 9-6-1993 the W.B.F.C. raised objection to the petitioner for utilising the hotel premises as a place of residence. Finally, on 10-11-1993 the W.B.F.C. issued the ultimatum to open the restaurant and a few rooms of the hotel within three months from the date of issuance of that letter in default to face legal action. On 16-8-1994 further notice under Section 30 of the W.B.F.C. Act was served. The petitioner moved the wrong forum against that before the State Consumer Disputes' Redressal Commission, West Bengal. On 18-6-1990 notice under Section 29(1) read with Section 30 of the W.B.F.C Act was issued to the petitioner. The said Commission dismissed the petition of the petitioner and the petitioner on 2-7-1996 filed the suit and moved an application for injunction. But on 26-7-1996 the petitioner was informed the W.B.F.C. that the possession of the unit was taken over. The injunction application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and there was an appeal before the learned District Judge. But the learned District Judge also affirmed the order of the learned trial Court in Misc. Appeal No. 19/1996. On 8-11-1996 an unit was sold and sale was confirmed and possession was delivered to the purchaser and thereafter on 7-11-1996 the possession of the portion which was under the occupation of the petitioner was also taken over.
(3.) The petitioner on being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his injunction prayer by both the Courts below has preferred the present revis-ional application, inter alia, on the grounds :(i) If notice under Section 30 is issued remedy is under Section 31 or 32 of the Act of 1951 and no steps can be taken under Section 29 of the Act of 1951;(ii) The notice under Section 29 has been issued by the Branch Manager who had no power to issue the notice;(iii) The discrepancy in the figure mentioned in the notice makes that the notice invalid;(iv) It was also contended that in the facts and circumstances, the principle of Promissory Estoppel will apply.;