1993 2 SCC 279, the borrower was entitled to an opportunity to make an offer on the same terms on which KSIIDC had finalized the same with Vinpack.
However, KSIIDC did number implement that order.
98,36,636 which was due as on 24th May, 1996 and in pursuance of the order, possession of the unit was taken over on 14th November, 1996.
Subsequently, on 26th February, 1999, the borrower filed the Writ Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
In the said appeal it was held that instead of imposing companyditions on the borrower for setting aside the sale by tender even though the said sale was found illegal and opposed to the judgment in Mahesh Chandra, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the sale straight away without imposing any companyditions.
However, the borrower did number companyply with the directions and preferred a Writ Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
On 18th November, 1998, the borrower filed an application for directions to keep the premises open as some prospective purchasers desired to inspect the unit.
KSIIDC between January and December, 1997, viz.,
The borrower companymitted defaults in payment of the installments and, therefore, KSIIDC on 30th March, 1995 passed an order under Section 29 of the Act for taking over the unit of the borrower for recovery of its dues.
The appeals have been preferred by KSIIDC as well as M S Vinpack Investments Pvt Ltd., the purchaser for short Vinpack against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing KSIIDC to undertake the entire sale process once again and give opportunity to respondent No.
The application was allowed and KSIIDC was directed to keep the premises open during the period directed by the High Court.
An affidavit was, however, filed by the borrower offering to purchase the unit on the same terms on which KSIIDC had agreed to sell the unit to Vinpack.
The efforts of the borrower to enter in to arrangement with third parties to work the unit did number yield any result.
The borrower failed to avail the opportunity granted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
A writ petition was filed by the borrower challenging the sale, on the ground that the market value of the assets was more than the sale price and the guidelines laid down Mahesh Chandra have number been followed.
The companyrt directed the appellants to put up the unit for sale afresh by giving reasonable time to the borrower to repay the amount which had become due.
It was further directed that in the event of the number payment of any one of the amounts on or before the specified dates the said sale shall stand validated.
The borrower filed the writ petition on 4th November, 1998 for declaring the sale as void, illegal and companytrary to Section 29 of the Act.
Though KSIIDC did number accept the offer, but the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 29th January, 1999, on companysideration of factual and legal position, held that since there was number compliance of the guidelines laid down in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors.,
The revised offer was accepted by the financial companyporation and the sale was finalized.
a period of about one year issued three advertisements for sale of the unit.
Feeling aggrieved, the financial companyporation approached the Supreme Court by preferring an appeal.
1 to bring better offer for the properties.
Directions were issued to the effect that the sale effected by the financial companyporation shall stand set aside if the borrower deposits, in installments, the sale price as agreed between the financial companyporation and the intending purchaser.
There was companysiderable companyrespondence between KSIIDC and the borrower, in regard to the offers of some third parties, who were proposing either to purchase the unit or enter into some working arrangement with the borrower to run the unit.
171 lakhs which was accepted by KSIIDC by its letter dated 8th October, 1998.
Respondent No.
The borrower also did number clear the dues and, therefore, KSIIDC passed another order dated 30th October, 1996 under Section 29 of the Act for taking over the unit to recover a sum of Rs.
Suffice it to numbere that out of all offers, ultimately Vinpack, after negotiating increased its offer to Rs.
116.30 lakhs from KSIIDC as per the sanction letter dated 22nd April, 1991.
An intending purchaser made a offer, and after further negotiations the offer was revised.
1, M S Cavalet Industries Ltd. for short, the borrower borrowed a sum of Rs.
The learned Single Judge issued directions fixing the sale price at Rs.
171 lakhs.
