VAANAVIL DYEING UNIT NO 2 REP BY ITS PARTNER C V CHIDAMBARA BHARATHI Vs. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge a notice issued by the respondent Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short TIIC), dated 23.12.2011, wherein and by which the petitioner was informed that they had borrowed amounts from the TIIC and subsequently, they sought for concession under One Time Settlement (OTS). The OTS proposal was also given, which was also communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 23.06.2011. The petitioner was advised to remit 20% of the OTS amount within 30 days from the date of the letter and the balance 80% in five monthly installments with 13.5% simple interest and other charges on or before 22.12.2011. The petitioner failed to settle the balance 80% of OTS amount together with interest. Therefore, the OTS given to him was cancelled automatically and he was requested to settle the outstanding amount which worked out to Rs.4,03,84,919/-.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 25.1.2012, this court directed Mr.H.Adaikala Arokiaraj, learned Standing counsel for the respondents to take notice. Pending notice, this court recorded that the petitioner had offered Rs.9 lakhs by way of demand drafts and Rs.1 lakh in favour of the TIIC as part payment. Therefore, an interim stay of auction notice was granted.

(3.) IT must be noted that the relationship between the petitioner and the corporation was purely contractual. Already, the petitioner had one round of litigation before this court wherein a direction was given to the respondents to consider the OTS proposal. It was also considered. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Financial Corpn. v. Gem Cap (India) (P) Ltd., reported in (1993) 2 SCC 299. In paragraphs 3,12 and 10, the Supreme Court had observed as follows :