REKHA AGRAWAL Vs. RFC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was one of the bidders in auction proceedings initiated by Rajasthan Financial Corporation, has filed the instant petition assailing order dt.30/10/2006 (Ann.4) whereby while cancelling approval of the sale of auctioned industrial plot, the respondents forfeited a sum of Rs.41,000/- having been initially deposited at the time of auction having taken place on 18/10/1995.

(2.) It appears from material on record that a loan of Rs.6.80 lacs was sanctioned to respondent-3-Firm (M/s National Garnetings Ltd) on 27/02/1986 and Rs.5,57,300/- was disbursed but the Firm failed to make repayment of dues; as such its Unit was taken into possession on 15/04/1993 U/S 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 towards loan dues of Rs.10,91,058/- and accordingly, was put to auction on 18/10/95 wherein Vishnu Agrawal (petitioners husband) participated and offered the highest bid offer of Rs.8.80 lacs, which was accepted vide sale approval letter dt.18th/22nd November, 1995 (Ann.1) as per terms & conditions whereof, he was required to make payment of Rs.2,20,000/- (25% of auction sale price) within 15 days from the date of sale approval letter and so also to execute an agreement to sale within 30 days and to take over possession of the auctioned assets, which in instant case the petitioners husband failed to comply with. There was a further rider that in case possession of the assets is not taken by auction purchaser within 30 days, the Corporation will be at liberty to forfeit the amount deposited by him at the time of auction viz. initial deposit @ 5% of the bid.

(3.) However, respondent-3 Firm being original promoter, filed a declaratory suit (No.143/1995) before the Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Alwar on 23/11/1995 assailing the auction proceedings dt.18/10/95 and the trial Court granted temporary injunction vide order dt.29/11/1995 directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards property in dispute, as referred to in para 3 of the reply. It is pertinent to mention that auction purchaser was not a party to the suit filed by respondent-3 (Firm).