1 and 2, has directed the appellant to observe directions Nos.
25 lakhs.
6 lakhs was made.
2, 3 and 4 companytained in paragraph 22 in the judgment of Mahesh chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P Financial Corporation Ors.
Hence this appeal.
In response to the said advertisement, three offers were received.
1 to the said Bank which had a second charge on the land, building and machinery and that this amount of Rs.
2 was much higher than the offers made by m s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers inasmuch as respondent No 2 had also offered to pay a sum of Rs.
It is urged that the High Court was number justified in interfering with the said decision of the appellant.
The appellant extended finance to the tune of Rs.
When the matter was under companysideration, respondent No.
A further sum of Rs.
Respondent No.
A joint meeting of the offerers was held on September 28, 1992.
The appellant, therefore, did number accept the offer of respondent No.
On October 10, 1986 the appellant extended rehabilitation assistance under the RSR Scheme of IDBI and treating the unit as a sick unit sanctioned a further amount of Rs.
On October 23, 1990 the appellant took over the possession of the unit of respondent No.
2, only Rs.
In this regard, the submission of the learned companynsel is that a number of efforts were made to sell the unit of respondent No.
Thereafter, respondent No 1 was given an opportunity to bring a better offer or to submit a proposal for revival but it failed to do so and, therefore, a fresh advertisement for sale of the unit was issued on August 25, 1992.
1 and 2 was allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated August 11, 1993 whereby all proceedings subsequent to receipt of tenders pursuant to public numberice were quashed and the appellant was directed to observe the directions Nos.
In the case of respondent No.
2 lakhs was offered, and In the case of respondent No.
Thereafter the appellant took steps for sale of the unit and for that purpose a number of advertisements were issued inviting offers.
Respondent No.
1 till December 15, 1992.
3.93 lakhs.
23 lakhs for land, building and machinery The second offer was of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. for a sum of Rs.
The said proposal of respondent No.
Out of them, the offer of Shri P.K. Joseph on behalf of M s Chemtech Industries for a sum of Rs.
2 proposed the said dues to be paid by the appellant There was shorter time for payment of companysideration in the offers of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers inasmuch as the entire companysideration was payable within 4 years, whereas offer of respondent No.
On January 25, 1993, agreement was entered for the sale of entire unit to them.
In August 1981 the unit of respondent No.
1 was also invited.
2 as well as the offers received earlier were companysidered by the Board of the appellant and it was decided to accept the offers of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers.
Writ Appeal No.
After companysidering the said offers, a tentative decision was taken to accept the offers submitted by M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers.
1 and 2 filed the writ petition CWC 3591 of 1993 in the Karnataka High Court which has given rise to this appeal.
Respondent No.
2 lakhs was offered.
2, numberearnest money was paid.
25 lakhs to be paid to the appellant.
In response to the said advertisement, three offers were received and offers submitted by M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. for land and building and M s Shakti Rubbers for plant and machinery were found to be better than that submitted by M s Chemtech Industries.
In order to make the unit viable the appellant, on December 14, 1981, re scheduled the payment of the loan.
One offer was of M s Chemtech Industries for Rs.
The writ petition filed by respondents Nos.
10 lakhs by respondent No.
The Karnataka State Financial Corporation, appellant herein, is a State Financial Corporation established under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2 only Rs.
2 and accepted the offers of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers.
In response to third advertisement issued in August 1991, five offers were received.
As indicated earlier, the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by respondents Nos.
6 lakhs for plant and machinery only.
The said sale by the appellant was subject to the said charge.
By letter dated November 12, 1992, further time was sought by respondent No.
It was also found that there was shorter time for payment of companysideration in the offers of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers inasmuch as under the said offers the entire companysideration is payable within 4 years, whereas in offer of respondent No.
Thereafter, respondents Nos.
1 in exercise of the powers companyferred on it under Section 29 of the Act.
2 numberearnest money was to be paid, while earnest money was to be deposited by other offerers.
1 to bring any other offer for a higher amount.
2 envisaged the payment of dues to the Karnataka Electricity Board by the appellant, whereas the offers made by M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers envisaged payment of such dues by the offerers.
P. 297 Shri S. Ravindra Bhat, the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that in the facts of the present case the said directions had been substantially companyplied with by the appellant.
1 indicated that it would submit a proposal for the revival of the unit but it failed to companye up with any companycrete proposal.
No suitable offer was received in response to the first two advertisements.
1.65 lakhs was sanctioned in March 1984 for the purpose of purchasing a Diesel Generating Set.
3297 of 1993 filed by the appellant against the said judgment of learned single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated February 15, 1994.
1, a companypany registered under the Companies Act, set up a unit for the manufacture of rubber and like products.
But, in the meanwhile, Shri P.K. Joseph withdrew his offer on November 30, 1991 Thereafter respondent No.
1 sent a letter dated October 21, 1992 seeking 15 days time to make payment and submit a proposal for revival of the unit.
2 to purchase the entire unit including land, building, plants, furnishings and fixture for Rs.
2 the payment is to be companypleted in S years after initial companymencement of production.
1 companymenced production but from its very inception it companytinued to incur losses.
1, has submitted that the offer of respondent No.
The said writ petition of respondents Nos.
1 did number bring any offer.
Inspite of these facilities respondent No.
18 lakhs in respect of land and building only and the third offer was of M s Shakti Rubbers for Rs.
10 lakhs is in addition to Rs.
2 was number accepted by the appellant for the reasons that on proper evaluation it was found that it companyld number be regarded higher than that made by M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers because it was found that the offer made by respondent No.
1 by issuing advertisements from time to time but numbersuitable offer was received in response to the first two advertisements that were issued in 1991 and the offer for a sum of Rs.24 lakhs made by Shri P.K. Joseph on behalf of M s Chemtech Industries which was received in response to the third advertisement in 1991 was withdrawn by him on November 30, 1991.
As pointed out earlier, the offer made by respondent No.
24 lakhs was the highest and the Board of the appellant approved the said offer and decided that the companymunication for acceptance of the offer should be sent only after October 15, 1991 so as to give an opportunity to respondent No.
2 was a companyditional offer and payment was to be companypleted in 5 years after initial companymencement of production In the case of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers, down payment of 25 amounting to Rs.
1 on March 21, 1981.
1 companytinued to make default in payment of instalments for repayment of the loan.
10 lakhs to Canara Bank in final settlement of dues of respondent No.
All other parties deposited earnest money.
14.15 lakhs to respondent No.
Shri P. Mahale, the learned companynsel appearing for respondent No.
As regards the undertaking by respondent No.
C. AGRAWAL, J Special leave granted.
2 made an offer on January 4, 1993.
On January 4, 1995, an offer was submitted by respondent No.
Therefore, a fresh advertisement for the sale of the unit was issued on August 25, 1992.
The learned companynsel has submitted that the said offer of respondent No.
Respondent No.
Moreover, in the offer of respondent No.
2, 3 and 4 companytained in paragraph 22 of the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Regional Manager, U.P, Financial Corporation and Others, 1993 2 SCC 279.
2 was companysidered by the appellant and it was found that it was number better than the offers received from M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers for the following reasons The offers of M s Prime Inputs India Ltd. and M s Shakti Rubbers envisaged payment of dues of the Karnataka Electricity Board by the offerers, whereas the offer of respondent No.
