Disposed

M/S Edipee Synthetics P Limi v. Bihar State Financial Corporat

Jharkhand HC3 Aug 2016WPC/4216/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged auction of mortgaged assets alleging non-consideration of restructure offer. Court disposed of the writ petition but invited petitioner to seek redemption of assets from the Corporation, reserving the Corporation's right to proceed legally if conditions were not met.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner given liberty to approach Corporation for redemption opportunity.

M/S Edipee Synthetics P Limi Vs Bihar State… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 4216 of 2008

¶3

-- M/s. Edipee Synthetics (P) Limited, District- Ranchi.... Petitioner

¶4

vs.-

¶5

The Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna-1 through its Managing Director 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Fraser Road, Patna-1

¶6

The Manager I/C, (Zone-IV), Bihar State Financial Corporation, Ranchi

¶7

M/s. Jagran Prakashan Limited, District-Ranchi .........Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Manju Pandey, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Adv.

¶10

7/3.8.2016

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Aggrieved by the order at Annexure-4 dated 31st July, 2008 bearing Memo no. 179 passed by Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, respondent no.2 of auction sale of mortgaged/hypothecated assets of the petitioner an allotee of plot nos. 23 and 24, Phase-1, Industrial Aria, Tatisilwai, Ranchi, in favour of private respondent, namely, M/s. Jagran Prakashan Ltd, 62, Kokar Industrial Area, Kokar, Ranchi as per the provisions of Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, petitioner has approached this Court.

¶13

Petitioner contended that its offer for restructuring of its outstanding dues under the Incentive-cum-Loan-Reconstructing (ILRS) Scheme, 2008 has not been considered in a proper manner though it was valid till 31st December, 2008 before which the auction sale has been undertaken of mortgaged properties of the petitioner denying it the right of consideration to redeem its mortgaged property in question.

¶14

As it appears the consideration amount for the same was Rs. 22.51 Lakhs excluding the dues of Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority to be paid separately by the purchaser, respondent no. 4. The original promoter of the Unit was given liberty to retain the assets on

¶15

¶16

matching terms and conditions, if they so agree to pay the consideration amount and submit a suitable repayment plan for the difference of consideration price and their balance outstanding as on date of payment as well, and make the payment as per provision of para-2 within 21 days from the date of issue of sale order. Petitioner has contended that the Corporation had accepted amount of Rs. 92,000/- deposited in furtherance of application made for consideration under ILRS Scheme, 2008, which has not been duly considered while proceeding for auction sale of property. There was an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner dated 3rd September, 2008 in the terms that RespondentCorporation shall refrain from confirming the auction sale, as indicated in the impugned order at Annexure-4.

¶17

Counsel for Respondent-Corporation submits that in view of the interim order, the private respondent did not volunteer to deposit the auction sale amount within time prescribed and auction sale itself became infructuous. The scheme itself has lapsed admittedly by 31st December, 2008 and petitioner has not availed of any other scheme which was floated by Corporation thereafter. It further transpires that mortgaged asset of the petitioner have yet not been forfeited or sold in auction thereafter by the Corporation to realize any outstanding dues, which may be lying against the petitioner. In that way, the asset of the petitioner mortgaged with the Corporation are still lying idle.

¶18

In that view of the matter, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, it is considered proper that Respondent-Corporation gives one opportunity to the petitioner to redeem its mortgaged asset by repudiating outstanding dues in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Respondent-Corporation with such a request. Needless to say, if the petitioner fails to honour the conditions imposed by the Corporation for redeeming its mortgaged asset and repudiation of outstanding loan within time prescribed, it would be open to Corporation to proceed in accordance with law and the provisions of State Financial

¶19

¶20

Corporation Act, 1951 to realize its dues.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 1099 of 2010 and 5899 of 2015 also stands disposed of.

¶22

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J)

¶23

M/S Edipee Synthetics P Limi v. Bihar State Financial Corporat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Edipee Synthetics P Limi v. Bihar State Financial Corporat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Kumar Mishra Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Usha Mithal Vs Home Department

Janardan Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Ms R K Products Company through Its Authorized Signatory Jitendra Kumar Chourasiya Vs the Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary

Gopal Chandra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Devendra Nath Sahu Vs Food Supply