MULAGUNDLA SUDHAKAR REDDY Vs. MATTAPALLI LAXMI NARASIMHA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 18th February 2011, by which the prayer of the writ petitioner was allowed giving a direction to the Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation to receive the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- deposited by the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 to re-deliver possession of the Industrial Unit to the writ petitioner. The Corporation was also directed to refund the amount deposited by respondent No.3 including EMD within two weeks from the date on which respondent No.3 makes the claim.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 obtained loan from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short 'Corporation') for running a small-scale industrial unit, which was set up for producing packaged drinking water. The loan amount could not be repaid within the time, as a result, there has been an outstanding amount of Rs.24,15,000/-. A notice for payment was issued. In response to the notice, the writ petitioner approached for negotiations and on negotiations with the Corporation, it was settled between the parties, namely the writ petitioner and the Corporation, that the Corporation would accept a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- as full and final settlement if the same is to be paid in two instalments, one of which is Rs.3,00,000/- by way of down payment and the balance of Rs.14,00,000/- would be paid on or before 28-02-2010. Initially, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid. Thereafter, without waiting for payment of balance amount of Rs.14,00,000/- on or before 28.02.2010, the Corporation issued a notice on 27.01.2010 stating that it had received certain offers in response to its advertisement dated 24.10.2009, and in case any other person is willing to offer, it would consider the offers. Respondent No.3 in the writ petition is said to have made his offer and thus, negotiations have taken place on 18.01.2010. It is the case of the writ petitioner that without waiting for the last date of payment of balance amount i.e., 28.02.2010, the Corporation started taking action to sell the unit. Hence, it was arbitrary action taken in complete breach of the promise and on settled terms.

(3.) The learned single Judge accepted the case as made out by the writ petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, it was stated that the case made out by the writ petitioner for one time settlement was merely a proposal and it was never accepted. Since the payment was not made, the property was put up for sale by way of advertisement and it was sold to respondent No.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that in terms of the advertisement, his client has purchased the property having found that there has been default in paying the loan amount and there was no encumbrance at all. The learned single Judge has failed to notice that there has been no agreement for one time settlement. The learned single Judge has accepted one side version of the writ petitioner.