- (1.) M/s Satyam Synfab Limited and another through the present petition filed by them under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from auctioning the factory of the petitioner-cum-company situated at Modern Industrial Estate, Bahadurgarh, as also to stay the proceedings launched by the respondent-Haryana State Industrial Corporation, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (herein referred to as the Act).
(2.) So far as the pleas that the petitioner-company had already moved the Board of Industrial and Financial Re-Construction for a rehabilitation package since the Unit of petitioner-company had become sick and therefore the recovery proceedings could go on the same is repelled on the ground that the said application has since been rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation further states that against the dismissal of the aforesaid no appeal has been filed.
(3.) However, Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company vehemently contends that auction notice dated 19th August, 1993-Annexure P-1 needs still to be quashed as while giving public notice, not even the tentative price of the unit of the petitioner that was to be sold, was given. For the aforesaid proposition he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation, 1992 1 RRR 576. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the guidelines which are necessarily to be followed, were also not adhered to before issuing the proclamation notice for sale of the factory of the petitioner-company learned counsel also argues that after giving notice Annexure P.2 under Section 29 of the Act, no order as envisaged under the provisions of the said Act was passed and, therefore, the sale was ordered without complying with the provision of Section 29 of the Act.;