SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAN the Financial Corporation take possession of the mortgaged property and sell it in view of the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly noticed. The petitioners are the two partners of the firm-M/s Mohan Ice Factory, Bahadurgarh. A request was made to the Haryana Financial Corporation for the grant of a loan. An amount of Rs. 18.79 lacs was sanctioned. The firm withdrew an amount of Rs. 17.18 lacs. In March 1997, the petitioners entered into an agreement with Mr. Yogender Dahiya for the sale of the unit. The petitioners allege that after taking over possession, the buyer removed a part of the machinery. They informed the respondent-Corporation as also the police. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation took over the possession of the unit. On January 28, 1998, it lodged an FIR No. 26, at Police Station City Bahadurgarh alleging that the petitioners were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The unit was put to sale. It was auctioned for Rs. 5 lacs. Then, the petitioners were served with a notice dated February 4, 1999 by which they were informed that House No. WZ/8C/26A New Mohan Nagar, New Delhi which is mortgaged with the Corporation shall be sold on March 9. 1999. The petitioners were asked to deliver possession. Aggrieved by this notice, the petitioners have approached this Court though the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners allege that the action of the Corporation "is against the well settled law". They pray that the impugned notice issued on February 4, 1999 be quashed and that the Corporation be restrained from taking over possession of the residential house belonging to petitioner No. 2.

(3.) THE solitary contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Corporation cannot take possession of the mortgaged property. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.