- (1.) M/s. Assandh Rice Mills, the petitioner, has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or any other direction calling upon respondent No. 2, Haryana State Financial Corporation, to furnish details of the account of loan taken by the petitioner and for a direction to recover the same in accordance with law and for quashing the proceedings taken by the Corporation declaring the Haryana Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, as ultra vires and to hand over possession of the intra-disputed (Rice seller) to the petitioner. According to the averments made by the petitioner a loan to the tune of Rs. 6,27,000/was raised from the Corporation, by hypothecating the building and the machinery of the factory. Out of the aforesaid amount only a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- was disbursed. The rate of interest agreed was 11% with 1% as penalty interest in case of default in the payment of the instalments. It is not necessary to refer to the circumstances leading to default in the payment of the instalments. Suffice it to say that in 982 the entire loan was recalled by the Corporation and ultimately on February 28, 1983; the Corporation took possession of the building and machinery. A civil suit was also filed by the petitioner which was compromised and withdrawn. Ultimately the factory was put to auction. Respondent No. 4 Modern Enterprises, Safidon Road. Assandh, purchased it vide agreement dated March 13, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-, copy of the agreement to sell is Annexure P. 3-A. As per this agreement a sum of Rs. 50 000/- was deposited by respondent No. 4 with the Corporation and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments. All efforts made by the petitioner that such an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No. 4 was in connivance with the staff of the Corporation failed. The value of the property was stated to be not less than Rs. 20,00,000/. This action of the Corporation in selling the property in favour of respondent No. 4 was challenged.
(2.) AFTER notices were issued to the respondents, they contested the claim of the petitioner. According to the Corporation all efforts made to sell the property by public auction failed. It was ultimately that the Corporation agreed to auction it and entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 to get reasonable price for the factory payable in instalments. Similar pleas were taken by respondent No. 4 who asserted further that sale in his favour had been confirmed and could not be questioned.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings efforts were made to allow the petitioner to justify that his claim was bona fide and in fact the price of the factory was much more than the price which was fixed for sale to respondent No. 4. The petitioner produced a purposed buyer, M/s Raj Kumar and Co. who agreed to purchase the factory for a sum of Rs. 10,0p,000/ -. On October 12, 1992, draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- was offered which was paid to the counsel for the Corporation. On the next date another draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given. Thus the proposed buyer paid a sum of Rs. 10,00. (1)0/ -. The matter did not end there all efforts were made to settle the dispute between the parties. The Corporation was also left to settle with respondent No. 4 who had merely paid a sum of Rs. 1. 00,000/ -. Since no such settlement could be arrived at, the matter was taken up on January 27, 1993. Counsel for the pet tioner Shri Mohan Jain and Shri M. S. Rakkar, counsel for respondent No. 4, stated that the factory premises be put to auction between the proposed buyer M/s. Raj Kumar and Co and respondent No. 4-M/s. Modern Enterprises and the bid should start from Rs. 10,00,000/ as already offered by M/s. Raj Kumar and Co It was ordered On subsequent date of hearing when auction was to take place, statement of Gurdial Singh on the bid sheet was recorded and he declined to give any higher bid standing that auction had been confirmed in his favour. With the position as it is, the matter was again adjourned for arguments and twice Gurdial Singh on behalf of respondent No. 4 filed affidavits for taking into consideration other matters which there before auction was held in his favour. Thrice premises were earlier auctioned but no body gave bid higher than Rs. 4,00,000/ -. A bus stand had come up in the vicinity which escalated the price and respondent No. 4 should not be deprived of the benefit of the sale in his favour on that account alone as now the petitioner has produced M/s. Raj Kumar and Co. with a higher offer. At this stage, it may be pointed out that in none of these two affidavits it was asserted that counsel for respondent No. 4 had agreed for fresh bid to be taken in Court between the proposed buyer and respondent No. 4 without his consent.;