VIJAY KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of the properties known as M/s Sabina International, Bathinda and M/s. Holiday Inn, Bathinda in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale agreements dated 31.3.2000.

(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the Punjab Financial Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') took over the properties in question under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act') because their owners failed to repay the loan. Both the properties were put to auction on 16.2.2000. The petitioners gave the highest bid of Rs. 34,46,500/ - and 37,89,000/ - respectively for M/s Sabina International, Bhatinda and M/s Holiday Inn, Bathinda. The competent authority of the Corporation accepted their bid. Thereafter, agreements of sale (Annexures P -1 and P -2) were executed between the petitioners and the Corporation on 31.3.2000. The petitioners paid the full price specified in Annexures P -1 and P -2 and then submitted representations Annexures P -6 and P -7 for execution of he sale deeds. However, instead of performing their part of agreements, the concerned authorities of Corporation issued letters Annexures P -8 and P -9 dated 24.5.2001 vide which the petitioners were called upon to submit the requisite stamp papers for execution of sale deeds. The petitioners have relied on Clause (vi) of sale agreements Annexure P -1 and P -2 vide which Corporation had agreed to bear all expenses, i.e. stamp duty, registration free and other charges necessary for formal transfer of properties in their favour and, therefore, letters Annexures P -8 and P -9 are liable to be declared as void.

(3.) In their written statement, the respondents have admitted the execution of agreements Annexures P -1 and P -2, but they have resisted the prayer of the petitioners by stating that Clause (vi) had been in two agreements due to inadvertence oversight and in fact, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to submit the requisite stamp duty for execution of the sale deeds. They have further averred that the writ petition should be dismissed because the petitioners have got effective alternative remedy by filing suit for specific performance.