AMBA MILLERS PVT.LTD. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These writ petitions (C. W. Ps. No. 1860 of 1993 and 340 of 1994) between the same parties are being disposed of by common judgment, as these involve similar questions of facts and law.

(2.) Petitioner -1 is a private limited company, petitioner -2 is its Managing Director and petitioner -3 is its Director. On 7 -8 -1987 petitioner -1 was registered as small scale industrial unit. On its application it was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 47 lacs by respondent H. P. Financial Corporation by letter dated 5 -12 -1987 (Annexure P -5 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93). The project cost of its unit and means of finances, as appraised by the respondent -Corporation are given herein below : - A. Cost of Project SI. No. Descriptions Loan in lacs I. Land 3.50

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that in order to give insentives to the industrial units established at Baddi, there was a scheme of grant of subsidy, which was sanctioned in their favour by State Level Committee on 3012 -1988 as intimated to them by letter dated 11 -1 -1989 (Annexure P -6 to C W. P. No. 1860/93) after about one year from the date of sanction of loan in their favour on 5 -12 -1987. According to the petitioners, out of total sanctioned amount of subsidy of Rs. 19,10,750, only an amount of Rs. 4,30,750 was disbursed on 4 -3 -1989 and an amount of Rs. 2,02,250 was disbursed on 13 -6 - 989 and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,77,750 was not disbursed despite several requests made by them. Instead the respondent -Corporation arm twisted the petitioners for applying for another loan of Rs. 13 lacs by giving there first recall -cum -take over notice dated 11 -3 -1991. (Annexure P~9 to C W. P. No 1860/93) under section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). The additional loan of Rs 13 lacs was sanctioned in their favour on 27 -3 -1991. Further case of the petitioners ii that the additional loan only added to their financial burden and did not help them in any manner in establishing their business. Thereafter, another recall -cum -take over notice dated 9 -2 -1993 was issued, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing C. W. P. No. 182 of 1993. In the said writ petition this Court by order dated 21 -12 -1993 directed the petitioners to submit a proposal of rescheduling the repayment of loan within a period of six weeks and to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs on or before 16 -4 -1994 to show their bona fide. The petitioners did not avail this opportunity. Neither they paid the amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs nor made representation within the stipulated period. However, they submitted their representation dated 31 -3 -1994 which was received by the respondent -Corporation on 6 -4 -1994 Thereafter, the petitioners withdrew C. W; P. No. 182 of 1993 on 26 -4 -1994. The representation of the petitioners did not find favour with the respondent -Corporation and it was dismissed on 3 -5 -1994 Again for the third time, recall -cum -take over notice dated 6 -5 -1994 (Annexure PT to C; W. P. No; 340/94) was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to make payment of entire dues amounting to Rs 78,76,013 alongwith future interest, failing which the respondent -Corporation shall take over the possession of their industrial unit and mortgaged properties under section 29 of the Act on 20 -5 -1994 at 11.00 a m.