Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -a partnership firm has challenged the notice dated 23.01.2007 (Annexure P8) issued under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short "1951 Act") served on it by the Respondent -Punjab State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "respondent -Corporation") in the light of the statement of accounts of the petitioner -firm as per letter dated 16.10.1989 (Annexure P2), according to which petitioner -firm has paid the full amount rather has paid an amount of Rs. 55,509.42 over the agreed amount. Petitioner -firm was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 13.00 lacs by the respondent -Corporation for the purpose of establishing a cold storage unit on 27.01.1976. Mortgage deed in favour of respondent -Corporation was executed by the petitioner -firm on 01.06.1976. Out of the sanctioned loan amount, Rs. 10.29 lacs were availed by the petitioner -firm. During the days of militancy in Punjab in nineteen eighties, all cold storage units in Punjab went through a lean period and became sick. Even the recoveries of the loan amounts due from the borrowers became difficult and, therefore, the State Government recommended a Scheme for settlement of the loan accounts of such units. In pursuance thereto, the Board of Directors of the respondent -Corporation floated a proposal for concessions on case to case basis authorising the Managing Director through a resolution dated 30.05.1986 to sanction the same in the case of deserving units.
(2.) PETITIONER -firm being covered by the Package of Concession to sick cold storage units was held entitled to the benefit of the same and was granted concession to enable it to rehabilitate its unit and reschedule its account as is apparent from the letter dated 16.10.1989 (Annexure P2). As per the said letter, a concession of Rs. 9,06,225.21 in the principal and interest w.e.f. 15.06.1986 was sanctioned to the petitioner -firm and the schedule of payment was also provided, according to which the petitioner was required to pay back its loan amount by 15.12.1995. To this offer, the petitioner -firm gave its consent and also fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the letter (Annexure P2). Petitioner -firm started repaying the amount to the respondent -Corporation. Entire amount totalling Rs. 16.90 lacs against the rescheduled amount was paid on 29.11.1995, which was well before the last date, i.e., 15.12.1995. It is asserted that besides paying back the amount due with respect to interest amount, principal amount as well as interest on principal amount, an amount of Rs. 55,509.42 in excess was paid to the respondent -Corporation above the agreed amount. Petitioner -firm after payment of the last instalment requested the respondent -Corporation through representation dated 07.12.1995 (Annexure P3) to settle its account as per the terms of the letter dated 16.10.1989 (Annexure P2) calling upon the respondent -Corporation to issue No Dues Certificate and return all original documents of land and other loan documents to the petitioner. All through, the petitioner had been approaching the respondent -Corporation and visiting its office, meeting officials for the issue of No Dues Certificate and for the return of the original documents, but without any result.
(3.) NO communication was received from the respondent -Corporation, when after almost a gap of ten years to the surprise and shock of the petitioner, a letter dated 15.01.2004 was received from the respondent -Corporation calling upon the petitioner -firm to deposit an amount of Rs. 13.41 lacs, i.e., principal amount Rs. 9.07 lacs plus Rs. 4.34 lacs as interest thereon being balance w.e.f. 15.05.1988. This amount was to be paid within a period of fifteen days. Petitioner -firm approached the respondent -Corporation and pleaded with them that the said amount was a concession amount given and allowed to the petitioner as per policy decision vide letter dated 16.10.1989 (Annexure P2) and, therefore, the action of the respondent -Corporation was totally unjustified.;