NAND GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this petition.

(2.) THE argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the highest bidder and he ought to have been given the property, is not based on the fact as the bid -offer given by him was not accepted by the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents has argued that the main borrower who had borrowed the amount entered into one time settlement with the respondents and after settlement his total liability in regard to loan was settled at Rs. 1,23,08,827/ -, out of which, he had paid a sum of Rs. 15 lacs in June 2007 in addition to the amount of Rs. 14.90 lacs already paid by him, meaning thereby that the main borrower had paid an amount of Rs. 29.90 lacs and further the respondent -Corporation vide its letter dated 07.06.2007 allowed the borrower to deposit the balance one time settlement amount by December 2007 and that the main borrower gave two post dated cheques of Rs. 50 lacs each payable by 24.12.2007 and 31.12.2007. He further states that apart from the aforesaid amounts, Rs. 5 lacs more has been received by the respondent on 01.02.2008.