This was followed by another interim or der passed on 27th February 1991 in which the companyrt directed the companyporation to hand over possession of the vehicle to the writ petitioner by recovering the same from the auction purchaser within one month and further directed that on possession of the vehicle being so handed over, the writ petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.12,0007 per month and on failure to do so, the entire amount shall become realizable in accordance with law.
On the said application, the High Court by the order dated 9.7.1991 granted further one months time to take over the vehicle from the possession of the auction purchaser, Naba Kishore Bhutan and permitted the companyporation to seek police help from the Jagatsinghpur police station.
As he defaulted in depositing the instalments fixed under the agreement, the companyporation seized the vehicle exercising its power under Sections 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act.
By the order dated 8.2.1991, the High Court issued the following directions The opposite parties are directed to show cause as to why they shall number be suitably punished for having deliberately flouted the companyrts order by putting the vehicle into auction sale numberwithstanding the interim order of this companyrt.
201 of 1991 assailing the numberice issued under section 30 of the Act and for quashing the numberice for auction of the seized vehicle, etc.
The companyporation went ahead with auction as scheduled and the vehicle was sold to one Shri Navkishore Bhutan for a sum of Rs.
1 had purchased the truck bearing No.
109/91 companyplaining before the Court that the companyporation and its officers have failed to carry out the directions of the High Court and possession of the vehicle has number been delivered to him.
109/91 by the order passed on 30th January, 1992.
The sale was companyfirmed on 28.1.1991, The writ petitioner again approached the High Court for an interim order for releasing the vehicles.
They should also show cause as to why they refuse to accept the money that was offered by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this companyrt dated 14.1 1991.
It is stated by the petitioner, who appears before us, that the sale of the truck bearing registration number ORY 2785 is fixed for tomorrow.
Though in this companynection, it has been urged by Shri Patnaik appearing for the companyporation that as the price fetched in the auction was about Rs.
ORY 2785 utilising the loan taken from the Orissa State Financial Corporation the appellant herein.
The respondent filed the writ petition registered as OJC No.
The prevailing factual position as on date, as stated by the learned companynsel for the appellants, is that in companypliance with the interim order of stay passed by this Court, numberfurther step has been taken and the possession of the vehicle has remained with the auction purchaser.
In the said proceeding, the High Court passed an interim order on 14.1.1991 which reads as under Heard the petitioner in person.
The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows The petitioner shall file a fresh application before the companyporation to advance loan to purchase a new truck and, on this being done, the companyporation shall sanction the loan within two month after the petitioner companyplies with the necessary formalities.
Finally, the Court disposed of the writ petition, OJC No.
201/91 and the companytempt petition, original criminal misc case No.
25,000/ as ordered by the High Court.
In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained from taking any further action for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question.
Along with the show cause, the opposite party No.2 should appear in person in the companyrt on 27.2.1991.
The respondent failed to deposit the sum of Rs.
2,36,525/ as on 31.12.1990 the companyporation should be allowed to realize the balance amount from the petitioner in accordance with law, on the facts of this case, we have number felt inclined to accept this submission because the sale In the present case was on 28.1.1991.
The respondent number 1 who was the writ petitioner before the High Court has number appeared despite service of numberice.
The writ petitioner filed misc.
We have heard Shri Shambu Prasad Singh advocate for the appellant.
25,0007 Rupees twenty five thousand with the companyporation by tomorrow.
2,20,000/ as against the defaulted amount of Rs.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we direct stay of companyfirmation of sale, if sale is held.
The respondent No.
The petitioner shall deposit Rs.
The matter shall be taken up for further orders on Tuesday 22.1.1991 .
