RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS is second round of litigation. Earlier also the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which is registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/1991 before this Court and was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13. 9. 94. While disposing of the writ petition this Court observed as under: " I have considered over the matter. The facts involved in the present case are disputed questions facts and cannot be adjudicated under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a civil suit. The only observation which can be made in the present case is that for the settlement of the accounts, the petitioner has to approach the respondents along with the statement of accounts and if any error is pointed out they would immediately correct the same. The question of waiving interest is on the basis of certain norms which are already settled and the directions cannot be given by this court. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the respondents within 15 days from today with regard to non- adjustment/correction of mistakes/etc. the respondents would within 10 days thereafter decide the same and the amount could be reduced accordingly. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. "
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court vide judgment dated 13. 9. 94 the petitioner filed a representation on 28. 9. 94 before respondent No. 1 by which submitted the statement of accounts and claimed a sum of Rs. 17,37,000/- from R. F. C. The respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 22. 1. 98 informed the petitioner regarding outstanding amount of Rs. 5,78,833/- against the petitioner and Rs. 2,42,148/- was shown outstanding against the M/s Hotel Gopi Kishan & Annapurna Restaurant and thus the total amount outstanding against the petitioner was shown as Rs. 8,20,981/ -. The case of the petitioner is that since against the amount of Rs. 8,20,981/- the petitioner has deposited more than Rs. 4 lacs and only Rs. 4,50,000/- remains outstanding against the petitioner. Therefore, after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs. 4,50,000 the respondent RFC should be directed to make the balance payment out of Rs. 17,37,000/- as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner at the time of oral submissions has formulated own style certain questions for determination. The first question is that whether the agreement to sale by which a part consideration of Rs. 4 lacs was received by the Corporation on 1. 3. 84 and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- withheld by the petitioner on account of defective title of RFC would amount to be termed as loan by the RFC would amount to be termed as loan by the RFC and hence liable to compound interest upon interest @ 22. 5% p. a. , if so, what will be effect of it on the said controversy. To elaborate this question learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. G. G. Sharma submits that the petitioner cannot be termed as a borrower as he is purchaser since he has purchased the hotel in open auction, therefore, provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 are not applicable and at the most the case fall under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioner more particularly referred Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with the rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.
(3.) TO show that the petitioner is not a borrower but a purchaser he referred para 2 of the agreement wherein the petitioner has been referred as purchaser. In view of this fact he tried to impress the Court that since he is purchaser, therefore, notice for recovery of the outstanding amount issued under the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act 1951 is without jurisdiction. He further submits that RFC committed mistake and acted malafidely not considering any claim of the petitioner dated 28. 9. 94, which was filed as per the direction of this Court and action of recovering the amount without considering the claim of the petitioner is unreasonable, malafide and arbitrary. He read out the judgment dated 13. 9. 94 passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. He gave much emphasis in the observation made in para 2 of the judgment wherein the Court observed that for the settlement of account petitioner has to approach the respondents along with the statement of account and if any error is pointed out they would immediately correct the same. ;