- (1.) Petitioner firm through its proprietor has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 30/05/1988 (Annexure P-6 with the petition) passed by the Haryana Financial Corporation (for short the 'Corporation') under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby possession of the factory belonging to the petitioners was sought to be taken on defaults being committed by it in the repayment of the loan advanced by the Corporation. Facts giving rise to this petition are as under :- Petitioner No. 1 of which petitioner No. 2 is now stated to be the sole proprietor is an industrial concern within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, and was carrying on business of printing labels of various types and making plastic pouches and bags etc. at Gurgaon under the name and style of M/s. Bags and Cortons which to begin with was a partnership firm but was reduced to a sole proprietorship concern at the time when the present petition was filed. For carrying on its business, this industrial concern had purchased land measuring over 20,000 Sq. yards at Daultabad Road, Gurgaon and set up a factory by putting up sheds etc. It is stated that a Bungalow has also been built in which the family members of the present proprietor are residing. During the course of business, the industrial concern needed finances and the Corporation agreed to advance to it a sum of Rs. 4,90,000.00 as loan on the security of its land along with the factory buildings constructed thereon as also the machinery installed therein. A registered mortgage deed was executed between the parties on 11/10/1967. The loan was required to be repaid along with interest in nine instalments commencing from April, 1968. It is admitted that the industrial concern did not run satisfactorily and suffered losses and, therefore, it could not keep up the schedule of payment of the instalments. Consequently, the Corporation filed a petition under Section 31 of the Act against the petitioners herein and some others who were at that time partners of petitioner No. 1. This petition was filed in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon. On 26/07/1976, an ex parte order against all the respondents therein including the petitioners was passed holding that a sum of Rs. 6,91,644.73p including interest had become due to the Corporation as on 31/03/1974. The District Judge further ordered that the mortgaged property including plant and machinery be sold and the Corporation be paid the aforesaid sum out of the sale proceeds with future interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1/04/1974 till realisation. The Corporation then moved an application on 20/01/1979 under Sub-Section (8) of Section 122 of the Act read with Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for execution of the ex parte order. The application for execution was initially contested on behalf of the judgement-debtors and the District Judge as per his order dated 27/02/1982, directed the sale of the attached property in execution of the order and posted the case for report of sale on 3/05/1982. However, on 20/03/1982, the learned counsel for the Corporation moved an application intimating the Court that the parties have compromised the matter and it was on this application that the case was taken up on that date. A written compromise deed was filed in Court and the statement of Sh. O. P. Mohindra, who is presently the sole proprietor of the industrial concern and a petitioner in this writ petition was recorded. A prayer was made to the Court that the matter be disposed of in terms of the compromise. According to the compromise, the schedule of payment was revised by the Corporation by giving more time to the judgement debtors. It was specifically agreed that interest up to 20/03/1982 would be charged at the rate of 10% per annum but for the subsequent period thereon, it would be charged at the rate of 17.5% per annum. It was further agreed between the parties that if payment was made by the judgement-debtors on the due dates, they would be entitled to a rebate of 3% in the rate of interest. The matter was then disposed of on 20/03/1982 in terms of the compromise. It appears that the judgement debtors were not able to keep up the revised schedule of payment and the amounts due on different dates were not paid. The Corporation issued several notices to them till the year 1987 pointing out that a sum of more than Rs. 20 lacs had become due from them with future interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum from 1/03/1987. The industrial concern sent a reply to one of the notices disputing the total amount claimed by the Corporation. It was also stated in the reply that the judgement-debtors had agreed to the compromise on 20/03/1982 under coercion, and that some of the amounts paid to the Corporation had not been accounted for. It was at this stage in May, 1988 that the Corporation decided to exercise its powers under Section 29 of the Act and take possession of the factory of the Industrial concern and sell the same to realise its dues. A communication dated 30/05/1988 was sent to the petitioners herein which reads as under :- "We are sorry to note that you have not cared to make payment in spite of our registered notice No. 34053 dated 17-9-1987. At present we are due a sum of Rs. 22,60,177.50 (Rupees Twenty two lacs sixty thousand one hundred seventy seven and paise fifty only) with further interest from 1-3-1988 @ 17.5% p.a. and costs. It is no longer possible for us to wait indefinitely for the payment of the amount due to us. We have therefore decided to take over the possession of your factory and to sell it ourselves under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. This will be done on 20-6-1988, You will please arrange to deliver possession of the factory to us on 20-6-1988 failing which we shall be constrained to take over the possession with the help of Police, if necessary. We will then sell it either by public auction or by private negotiations for recovery of our dues."
(2.) This communication has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) In the background of the aforementioned facts that I have now to examine whether the provisions of Sections 29, 31 and 32 of the Act can be invoked simultaneously by the Corporation.;