REETA MOHANTY Vs. ANTARYAMI PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant before this Court against a reversing judgment.

(2.) THOUGH this matter was listed for admission, the contesting respondents entered appearance and prayed for disposal of the appeal at the stage of admission. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 who is the main contesting respondent were heard. Since the matter was argued at length by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, I consider it necessary to analyse the case of both the parties in order to find out as to whether or not this second appeal involves any substantial question of law to be decided.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff -appellant is that she is the founder and permanent lifetime Director of a hotel named 'M/s. Hotel Aristocrat Pvt. Ltd.' located in Paradeep. The hotel commenced operation with effect from April, 1984 with the financial assistance received from two financial institutions, namely, Orissa State Financial Corporation (in short, 'OSFC') and IPICOL. The appellant being a housewife entrusted the entire management of the hotel to respondent No. 1 who happens to be the brother of her husband and having full trust in him never checked the accounts, occupancy position or the financial affairs of the hotel. Taking advantage of the situation, respondent No. 1 started manipulating the accounts and defaulted in making payment of the instalments of the financial institutions, as a result of which the OSFC seized the hotel on 13 -8 -1993. The appellant had no other way except approaching this Court by filing a writ application and by order of this Court, she had to deposit Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees six lakhs) at the first instance in order to prevent the financial institutions from making negotiations to sell away the valuable properties of the company to third parties. Thereafter, the appellant took steps for clearing the loan liability gradually in phased manner as directed by this Court and without the knowledge of the appellant, respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement with the financial institutions containing stipulations with regard to the higher rate of interest with retrospective effect. This conduct of respondent No. 1 burdened the hotel with additional pecuniary liabilities. After payment of the instalment dues relating to first two quarters of 1996, the OSFC again seized the hotel on 11 -9 -1996 on the ground that there was default in payment of two consecutive instalments and as a result, there was a total outstanding dues of Rs. 88,00,000 (Rupees eighty -eight lakhs). The appellant again approached this Court in a writ application and offered to pay the outstanding dues within a stipulated time. The further allegation of the appellant is that till 15 -5 -1994 he was the director and subsequently there had been no structural change in the management of the company. When she started taking active interest in the management of the company and resisted entry of outsiders into the Board of Management, respondent No. 1 fabricated documents to show that the appellant had resigned from the board of directors. Due to such conduct of respondent No. 1, she filed the suit for the relief as stated above.