The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.
The suit is dismissed exparte against defendant number 3.
A Letters Patent Appeal preferred thereagainst before a Division Bench of the High Court has been dismissed as being number maintainable.
B is number a reliable document at all and has number been companyrectly and impartially prepared and it is incomplete.
It furthermore companytended that despite service of numberice upon the Bank the movable properties having number been removed from the factory premises, the appellant was number liable to pay any damages.
1,87,635.24 One lac eight, seven thousand six hundred thirty five and twenty four paise by way of damages as detailed in Schedule A of the plaint be passed against the defendant number 1 2.
But the sale which was companyducted by the defendant No.
1 appellant was number companyduct in a proper way and there was companylusion in between the defendant number 1 and defendant number 2, so ignoring all the numberms, the sale was companyducted and as such, both defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 are liable, and, therefore, the learned companyrt below gave a finding against the defendant number 2 holding the defendant number 1 appellant of F.A. No.
A decision was taken to sell the said properties in favour of one Shri Atma Lal Agrawal, respondent No.
However, the plaint was later on amended and the following relief was added A decree for a sum of Rs.
Jaw crusher without Motor Blower 1 No.
1,87,635.24 p One lac eight, seven thousand six hundred thirty five and twenty four paise for claim of relief number A on companytest against defendant number 1 and against defendant number 2 with companyt also with interest at a rate of 12 per annum pendente lite and future till realization.
531 of 1993 responsible for the loss of the property as described in Schedule A of the plaint.
It, on or about 5.11.1976, for the aforementioned purpose, sought for and was granted loan by the appellant for a sum of Rs.
Inter alia on the premise that the plaintiff failed and or neglected to pay amount of loan in the manner specified, a proceeding in terms of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act was initiated by the appellant on or about 7.12.1981.
Is the suit as framed maintainable under the law?
Thus, issue number 4 is decided in favour of plaintiff against defendant number 1 and defendant number 2.
The purchaser allegedly utilised the said materials.
However, numberbid was received pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof.
The learned Trial Judge, having regard to the pleadings of the parties, inter alia framed the following issues Has the plaintiff any valid cause of action for the suit?
The High Court held that the appellant broke open the door of the factory in absence of any representative of the plaintiff.
However, admittedly the factory was closed in March, 1982 for one reason or the other.
Further, he did number appear or take part in the tender that was opened at the head office of Bihar State Financial Corporation and Bihar State Financial Corporation also when numbertender was filed, should have re issued the tender and from the evidence of the Branch Manager, defendant No.
It is furthermore number in dispute that the plaintiff had taken a working capital loan for a sum of Rs.
Indisputably, the properties which were hypothecated to the State Bank of India, respondent No.
Appellant in its written statement inter alia companytended that it had exercised its power bona fide in terms of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act.
Is the sale companyducted by the Corporation defendant number 1 in favour of defendant number 2 bonafide and legal one?
the lease hold right over a piece of land admeasuring 0.56 acres at Village Kokar.
Advertisements were issued for selling the factory on 16.12.1982 and 12.01.1983.
The inventory list of machineries which were in the factory premises was handed over to the defendant No.
3.36 lakhs.
Indisputably, the plaintiff refunded a sum of Rs.
Have the defendants taken and removed the movable properties which were number mortgaged to the companyporation illegally and unauthorisedly?
The suit for claim of relief number A 1 is dismissed against defendant number 2.
Inventory of the articles was also prepared without any representative of the plaintiff.
Thus, it is ordered that the suit be and the same is decreed for a sum of Rs.
2 for which an inventory was prepared on 16.02.1983 which is to the following effect PLANTS MACHINERY 1 312 3 Roller Raymond Mill Plant for Veeorope drive but without Motor and started companyplete with and Air classifier.
In terms of the said deed of mortgage, the plaintiff was required to liquidate the aforementioned amount of loan in fourteen instalments.
The defendant number 2 had purchased the mortgaged assets of plaintiff only vide Ext.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Disintegrator without Motor 1 No.
It was furthermore held The plaintiff is number entitled to decree against bank defendant No.
The plaintiff may recover the aforesaid amount jointly or severally from defendant number 1 and defendant number 2.
1,86,934.46 paise be passed against the defendant No.
2 and 3, the High Court opined A plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant Atma Ram who has filed F.A. No.
Various immovable properties including liquid assets and stock were hypothecated in its favour.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for valuing the mortgaged properties by the defendants?
In disposing of the said property, the appellant did number keep in mind the interest of the plaintiff at all.
1,60,000/ from the State Bank of India, Respondent No.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said appeal has been dismissed.
9 of 1984 in the Court of Subordinate Judge IV Ranchi wherein originally the following reliefs were prayed for That a decree for the payment of a sum of Rs.
2 herein.
The factory started operation from the month of November, 1978.
3 were also lifted without any information to the State Bank of India.
3,34,300/ .
The interest payable thereupon was 14.25 per cent per annum payable every six months.
1,32,000/ out of the total sum received from the appellant, viz.,
Electrical installation with starter switch Indisputably, in the said factory, the plaintiff had other properties which were number the subject matter of mortgage.
To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
As regards points No.
1 being the wrongful and deliberate loss caused to the plaintiff as specified in Schedule B, C and D of the plaint.
3 herein.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a suit being Money Suit No.
Plaintiff was number informed thereabout.
Respondent No.
So far as relief A 1 was companycerned, defendant number 1 appellant has been held responsible.
Whether the sale companyducted by the Corporation, defendant appellant, in favour of the defendant number 2 bonafide and legal one, and whether plaintiff respondent is entitled to damages for undervaluing the mortgaged properties by the defendants?
Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for?
1 intended to set up a factory in the Industrial Area, Kokar in the town of Ranchi.
Is the suit bad U s 46 b of the State Financial Corporation Act?
on 16.2.83 which were number subject matter of sale to defendant number 2 and on those account defendant number 1 and 2 are liable to pay damages to the plaintiff as claimed by plaintiff.
The plaintiff is also entitled for interest at a rate of 13 per annum pendente lite and future till realization.
The factory premises was handed over to the respondent No.
22 of 1994 against the judgment and decree of the learned companyrt below that he is number at fault, rather he is at loss on account of the fact that prior to the sale of the factory, some machines had been removed from the factory just before the take over of the factory.
The High Court in its judgment framed the following three points for companysideration Whether the appellant removed the movable properties number mortgaged to the Corporation illegally or unauthorisedly?
1,85,934.46 One Lack Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Four and paise forty six only for claim in relief number A 1, on companytest against defendant number 1 with companyt along with interest at a rate of 12 per annum pendente lite and future till realization.
The learned Trial Judge held The Branch Manager B.B. Singh has admitted in his evidence that numberody was present on behalf of plaintiff at the time of preparation of inventory vide para 13 and 15 and it falsified the written statement of defendant number 2 about presence of Pradeep Modi at the time of preparation of inventory.
The plea of the appellant that there was numbermovable property in the factory premises was disbelieved.
According to the plaintiff, the said sale was companyducted in a hush hush manner.
Appellant is a Corporation companystituted under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for short the Act .
The documentary and oral evidences of plaintiff and defendants fully support that inventory Ext.
The plaintiff installed machineries upon companystruction of buildings over the plot.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
7/4 and hence defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 companymitted a wrong in taking possession of raw materials, finished goods, spares etc.
An agreement was entered into by and between the parties, in terms whereof, the respondent number 1 mortgaged the properties described in Schedules A, B and C thereof in favour of the appellant Corporation, viz.,
1 obtained permission from the head office at Patna for approval of sale and in companyrse of time, sale was approved.
