- (1.) This is a classic case where the respondent-Financial Corporation, which waives away crores of rupees in settlements, is quibbling over a few thousand rupees qua a registered mortgage created in the year 1969, Possibly, more amount would have been spent in litigation than the dispute involves. It is not in dispute that the petitioners sought a loan from the respondent-Corporation. It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the loan was not repaid and an application was filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 195) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") for recovery of Rs. 77,746.85 with future interest from 13.8.1975 and other expenses. This application was rejected on 24.1.1980. One of the issues framed in these proceedings was: 1. Whether the respondents have committed breach of the agreement and so the amount of Rs. 38000/- was not released to them on account of that breach? OPA The findings on the said issue are contained in para-8, which read as under:-- 8. The above is the resume of the evidence led by the parties. On a scrutiny of the same I have reached the conclusion that the respondents had not committed such default so as to entitle the corporation to recall the loan. Certainly the respondents had not committed any default in payment of any instalment till the notice under section 30 of the Act was issued by the corporation. Rather it required the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 29044.53 vide its notice dated 5.9.75 which is Ex.R-3 but instead of waiting for the payment or the expiry of the time stipulated in the notice, it filed the instant application on 10.9.75. It is not understood as to why this notice was issued by the corporation if it had already recalled the loan. The only inference that can be drawn from this notice is that it had waived the notice issued under section 30 of the Act earlier. Perhaps it did so because there was no such default committed by the respondents so as to entitle the corporation to recall the loan. In the operative portion, it was stated as under:-- 14. In the result the application is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. However in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs. I may add that the respondents shall be liable to pay back the balance amount of the loan as per terms of the mortgage deed. The applicant may also, if so advised, release the balance amount of Rs. 38000/- to the respondents or adjust that amount in payment of any other instalment due from the respondents.
(2.) The undisputed fact is that the balance amount of Rs. 38,000/-,which the respondent-Corporation ought to have released to the petitioners, was never so released. Thus, this is a case where there is a categorical finding that the respondent-Corporation was at fault in not releasing the loan instalments as coupled with the finding that the petitioners were not in default. It is also not in dispute that this order has become final.
(3.) It appears that the petitioners were still willing to settle the claim of the respondent-Corporation and, in a sense, suo moto addressed a letter-Annexure P/5 requesting that the account should be closed and to put an end to the litigation, proposed to make an outright payment of Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining payment by six monthly instalments and the balance payable, if any, by 15.3.1991. It is again not in dispute that this proposal was accepted by the respondent-Corporation and the payments were accordingly made. On 28.11.1990, petitioners sent a cheque for Rs. 24,550/- towards the balance amount, but, apparently, a dispute was raised by the respondent-Corporation over this vide their letter dated 18.12.1990 stating that still a sum of Rs. 21,598.77 with future interest from 15.9.1990 is outstanding against the petitioners.;