Allowed

M/S Organo Chemical Ind. v. Haryana Financial Corp.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Dec 2010CWP/15789/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition opposing a factory auction. The Court directed the respondent Corporation to settle the petitioner's dues under a One-Time Settlement Scheme and ordered the Bank to release the settled amount.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent Corporation to settle amount under OTS Scheme; Direction to State Bank of Patiala to release settled amount.

M/S Organo Chemical Ind. Vs Haryana Financial… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

C.W.P. No. 15789 of 1989

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.M., No. 18187 of 2009 in C.W.P. No. 15789 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 03.12.2010

¶5

M/s Organo Chemcial Industries and others ...Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Haryana Financial Corporation and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶10

Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

Mr. P.D. Mehta, Advocate for State Bank of Patiala

¶13

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate in C.M. No. 18187 of 2009

¶14

¶15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (Oral)

¶16

The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to auction the factory of the petitioner on 06.12.1989 and restraining them from giving the factory to any body without negotiation.

¶17

The case came up for hearing on 05.12.1989 when notice of motion was issued and auction was stayed by this Court. Thereafter, the application, C.M. No. 7104 of 1990, was filed for impleading M/s Bhim Sain & Co., M/s Sanjay Kumar & Co., M/s Pawan Kumar & Co., M/s Dhani Ram & Co. and M/s Rameshwar Dass & Co. as petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in the writ petition. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.08.1990. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were the persons who had been

¶18

C.W.P. No. 15789 of 1989

¶19

-2-

¶20

brought in by the petitioner as buyers to the property in dispute. After the execution of the sale deed, petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were deleted from the array of the petitioners vide order dated 10.04.1991 as the claim of the petitioners stood satisfied. Thereafter, the matter was under consideration of this Court and at various stages various proposals were given.

¶21

An application being C.M No. 18187 of 2009 was preferred by applicants who were initially petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 to the writ petition stating therein that their claim for amount which they had given by means of Fixed Deposit Receipts with State Bank of Patiala was in excess of the amount than was due to them and, therefore, their claim be also finally decided at the time of disposal of the writ petition. The application was directed to be taken up with the main case.

¶22

The case was heard hearing on 10.09.2010 and taking into consideration all the facts of the case, the following order was passed:-

¶23

“After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the various orders passed by this Court, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered sympathetically. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that there are, from time to time, Schemes floated by the respondentCorporation which offer one time settlement and nonperforming assets scheme etc.

¶24

A direction is issued to the respondentCorporation to consider the case of the petitioner under any of the Schemes/Policies which would be most suitable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and come up with the tentative calculations on or

¶25

-3-

¶26

C.W.P. No. 15789 of 1989

¶27

before the next date of hearing.

¶28

Adjourned to 16.9.2010.

¶29

Copy of this order by given dasti to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Special Secretary of the Court for information and necessary compliance.”

¶30

On 26.11.2010, counsel for the respondents placed on record the communication dated 14.10.2010 which he had received from the respondents on the basis of “One Time Settlement Scheme” according to which the tentative amount worked out to Rs79,543/- in A/c-III with further interest form 15.05.2010 and Rs. 9,15,025/- in A/c-IV with further interest from 01.05.2010. This amount was however, subject to approval by the competent authority of the Corporation.”

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions in this matter and the case was adjourned to today i.e 03.12.2010. The petitioner has come present in Court. He states that he accepts the offer which has been made by the respondents-Haryana Financial Corporation.

¶32

In the light of the agreement entered into between petitioner No. 1 and respondent-Haryana Financial Corporation, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms with a direction to the respondentHaryana Financial Corporation to finally settle the amount with the petitioner No. 1 and a direction is also issued to the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 26, Chandigarh with whom the sale proceeds of the factory stood deposited (Fixed Deposit Receipts etc.) to release the settled amount to the petitioner and respondent- Haryana Financial Corporation, as per their respective claims.

¶33

It is hereby clarified that the above order will not prejudice the

¶34

C.W.P. No. 15789 of 1989 -4-

¶35

right of applicants in C.M No. 18187of 2009, if they have any claim against petitioner No. 1 or the Haryana Financial Corporation. Their claim, if any, cannot be adjudicated upon now in these proceedings for the reason that they are not parties to the writ petition and especially in the light of the order dated 10.04.1991 passed by this Court, vide which they were deleted from the array of the petitioners.

¶36

December 03, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) Gaurav.A JUDGE

M/S Organo Chemical Ind. v. Haryana Financial Corp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Organo Chemical Ind. v. Haryana Financial Corp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Arjun Vs State of Punjab

Roop Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vikas Malik and Anr. Vs Hukam Chand Malik

Rita Roy Vs Divisional Commissioner and Others

Surinderpal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.