- (1.) This revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. challenges the order dated 16-4-2001 of the learned ADJ No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby issue No. 4 pertaining to the maintainability of the application filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951 (in short 'the Act') has been decided against the petitioners.
(2.) The relevant facts which are not in dispute are that the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur (in short "the RIICO") advanced on 7-3-1988 a loan of Rs. 95 lacs to the petitioner for installation of a factory at Abu Road, Sirohi for the production of texterized/filament twisted yarn, who executed the necessary documents in favour of the non-petitioner. As the petitioner failed to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the loan was re-scheduled but the petitioner failed to repay the loan even as per the re-scheduled package. The non-petitioner, therefore, took possession of the mortgaged/hypothecated properties in exercise of its rights under Section 29 of the Act and recovered Rs. 100.00 lac by auctioning the same. For the hypothecated goods which were not available in stock, the petitioner deposited Rs. 28,000.00 in lieu thereof. After adjusting Rs. 3,39,804.10 paises against the expenses incurred on the sale of the properties, the non-petitioner credited an amount of Rs. 96,88195.90 paises towards the aforesaid term loan. As a further amount of Rs. 53,61,131.00 remained outstanding against the petitioners, an application under Section 31 of the Act was filed by non-petitioner against the debtor and the guarantor for recovery of the aforesaid amount through the attachment and sale of the properties of which the details were given in para 17 of the application. The petitioners filed a joint reply admitting that the non-petitioner had taken possession of the mortgaged hypothecated properties and had sold the same for satisfaction of its debt. But, denying all other averments, one of the pleas taken by the petitioners herein in their reply was that the non-petitioner herein having exercised its rights under Section 29 of the Act was not entitled to invoke the provision of Section 31 of the Act and the application under Section 31 of the Act for monetary claim of dues was, therefore, not maintainable. The Court below after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the submissions made at the Bar and on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Re-Rolling Mills with A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Kota Subba Reddy, (1994) 2 SCC 647 held that the application under S. 31 of the Act was maintainable even after taking recourse to the rights under S. 29 of the Act.
(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed by the Court below. Issue No. 4 pertains to the maintainability of the application and is based on the aforesaid plea of the petitioners herein. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on this issue, the Court below decided it against the petitioners and held that the application u/S. 31 of the Act was maintainable even after taking recourse to rights u/S. 29 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this revision.;