- (1.) THIS appeal under Clause (10) of the Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.1998 passed in CWJC. No 3663 of 1996 (R) Whereby the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant, held that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of Rs. 90,000/ -, which was deposited by him by way of security to the Corporation.
(2.) IT appears that one Vidya Prakash who was impleaded as respondent No. 5, was granted loan by respondent -Bihar State Financial Corporation (in short "Corporation") in the year 1990 for purchase of a Bus under certain terms and conditions. The said Vidya Prakash, subsequently defaulted in making the repayment of the loan amount. The petitioner along with one Sanjay Kumar Singh made an offer to the Corporation to purchase the said Bus at a price that may be fixed by the Corporation. In terms of the correspondence made between Corporation and the prospective purchasers, namely, the petitioner and Sanjay Kumar Singh, a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - was deposited by the petitioner as security money before finalisation of the purchase of the vehicle and issuance of sale order. The petitioners case is that before sale order was issued by the Corporation on 7.8.1996, the petitioner sent two letters requesting the Corporation to refund the earnest money as he was not willing to purchase the Bus on the terms and conditions imposed by the Corporation. Despite the aforesaid letter, the sale order was issued by the Corporation on 7.8.1996 and against the said sale order the petitioner along with Sanjay Kumar Singh sent a letter dated 19th August, 1996, informing the Corporation that the conditions imposed in the sale order to make payment of arrears of tax after 1995 was not acceptable to them and, therefore, the petitioner claimed for refund of the money. Instead of refunding the security money, the corporation sent a letter informing the petitioner that if an agreement is not executed the earnest money shall be forfeited.
(3.) ON the other hand the case of the corporation is that after depositing the earnest money by the petitioner and his co -partner Sanjay Kumar Singh with the consent of the Vidya Prakash the custody of the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner and the latter, by the two letters, agreed to give security of landed property against the sale price of the vehicle. It was further stated that it was only after one and half year the petitioner backed out from his offer and made a request for refund of the earnest money.;