- (1.) Petitioner, Hindustan Engineering Corporation preferred this revision petition being aggrieved with the order dated, 24th Oct., 1989 passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated, 2nd Nov., 1989 passed by the appellate Court rejecting the application moved under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
(2.) Petitioner has come with the case that he borrowed few lacs of rupees from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, non-petitioner. He instituted a suit against the Corporation and prayed therein that he should not be dispossessed from the property against which he has obtained the loan. The description of the property is the industrial unit situated in Malviya Nagar in Khand No. H-108. Both the Courts below considered that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and injunction should not be granted restraining the Financial Corporation from realising the loan already granted to the petitioner. In the matter of realisation it is necessary to take the management and possession of the property under S.29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.
(3.) Mr. Bhandari appearing on behalf of the petitioner, with all vehemence at his command submitted that the provisions of S.29 cannot be invoked as no regulations have been framed under S.48 of the said Act of 1951. S.48 of the Act is an enabling provision under which the Board may after consultation with the Development Bank and with the previous sanction of the State Government make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1951. Thus S.48 is not mandatory section and it is only an enabling section. It is not necessary to frame the rules and regulations under S.48 of the Act and Corporation can function without the rules. Legislature in its wisdom has rightly used the word 'may' in S.48. I do not find any force in this submission made by Mr. Bhandari about the applicability of S.48 quo S.29 of the Act.;