GAURAV PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI K.L. SHARMA Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property of industrial concern, which had availed of a secured loan from the Respondent-Corporation, was sought to be sold for recovery of amount due to the Respondent-Corporation. The issue has come through this writ petition, seeking for a mandamus to direct the Respondents to accept the proposal submitted by the Petitioner and dispose of the unit to the person as proposed or in the alternative to any better person, who could offer more, and for issuance of other directions. The writ petition came to be filed at a time when the Petitioner admittedly could not repay the loan and the Respondent took possession of the Petitioner's premises on 16.06.1997. At that time, the amount outstanding was in the range of Rs. 1.70 lacs and odd, but after taking possession, the property was not immediately put up for auction. At every time when bids were called, the Respondent informed the Petitioner, but the Petitioner himself had his own apprehensions that the property would be sold for less than what the market could fetch.

(2.) Even before the arguments could get underway, the counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the prayer in the writ petition has not been amended ever since its initial filing and the relief in the petition does not take note of the subsequent events which have taken place where the property was sold to a buyer who the Petitioner himself had brought and the sale was also made in his favour at the price suggested by the Petitioner himself for Rs. 1.40 crores against the offer of Rs. 1.35 crores which the Corporation had identified through another party as the highest bidder. The Court passed an order on 03.04.2002 allowing the property to be sold to the person brought at the instance of the Petitioner himself and a further order passed on 10.05.2002 that records the fact that the requisite deposits had been made by the person brought by the Petitioner and an agreement had also been entered into for purchase.

(3.) Having regard to the subsequent development of a sale having been concluded in favour of a person who the Petitioner himself had brought, the substantial relief sought for in the writ petition cannot any longer avail. However, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner addressed arguments that the Respondent had not settled the accounts yet and was still making demands as though large sums of money were still due. During the course of proceedings, a Local Commissioner had been appointed to take an inventory of the machineries at the factory, since the Petitioner alleged that the valuable machineries were getting pilfered and the Respondent, as a person in possession, who was not merely a bailee, but a trustee of the Petitioner's property, was bound to exercise due diligence and care and would become responsible for any loss occasioned by the pilferage of the valuable items. A report had been filed by the Commissioner after inspection but the Corporation itself had very serious objections for the report in so far as it gave details of valuation of some of the items and assumed that some goods had gone in disrepair or lost due to the pilferage by the alleged negligence of the Corporation. The Petitioner's contention, however, was that if the valuation of the Commissioner's report were to be accepted, the Respondent was still liable to pay to the Petitioner than any form of liability to subsist in favour of the Respondent by the Petitioner.