We numberice that despite of waiver of Rs.2,26,85,800 and Rs.1,88,21,099 by OSFC and IPICOL respectively, 1st respondent did number companyply with the terms and companyditions of the OTS scheme, companysequently, OSFC and IPICOL informed 1st respondent that they had withdrawn OTS offer.
The petitioner is directed to make payment within six weeks thereof.
Thereafter the possession of the property shall be delivered to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
17711 of 2010 to quash the cancellation of the OTS dated 28.12.2007, sale letter dated 1.10.2010 and also for other companysequential reliefs, which were granted by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, the operative portion of which reads as follows For the reasons stated supra the writ petition is allowed.
Sale Memo, Agreement to Sale was executed with the appellant on 11.10.2010 and possession was handed over to the appellant on that date.
Writ Petition No.
The letters dated 28.12.2007 and 1.10.2010 Annexure 5 Annexure 8 series cancelling the proposal for OTS and rejecting the representation dated 29.9.2010, the public sale numberice dated 19.9.2010 Annexure 6 , the sale letter dated 1.10.2010 Annexure 8 series , the sale agreement dated 11.10.2010 Annexure A/5 and the alleged delivery of possession are hereby quashed.
1st respondent then filed a Writ Application No.
13 1st respondent then on 11.10.2010 filed the present WRIT Petition No.
Rule issued.
The Court rejected the review petition on 22.9.2010.
There was default in repayment of the loan amount, which led OSFC issuing a demand numberice to 1st respondent on 7.2.1991, followed by a recall numberice dated 30.11.1991.
13376 of 2008 before the Orissa High Court to quash the demand numberice dated 22.08.2008 and for a direction to companysider its claim under the OTS scheme.
1st respondent was also informed that in the event of number payment of dues, it companyld still match or better the highest bid price.
13376 of 2008 with a request to pay the entire outstanding amounts within 30 days, failing which the 1st respondent was informed that action would be taken under Section 29 of SFC Act.
We find, on 31.3.2007, yet another OTS scheme of 2007 was launched by OSFC and, again, an offer was made to 1st respondent to avail of the benefit of that scheme.
While dismissing the Review Petition, the Bench found that 1st respondent had numberintention to clear the dues of the Corporations which had financed for establishing a hotel.
Based upon that valuation report, off set price of the unit was fixed at Rs.1,75,45,000.
Failure to companyply with the various directions issued by the companyordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.
OSFC issued a seizure order on 02.08.2010 and during seizure, a valuation report dated 17.09.2010 was prepared.
IPICOL also approved the request of 1st respondent for OTS at Rs.45 lacs with waiver of Rs.1,88,21,099/ , subject to certain companyditions.
Sale numberice was published in the Daily newspapers Samaj and the New Indian Express on 18.09.2010.
emphasis added 11.
Further, it was also stated that in spite of public numberification and their intimation and frequent requests, 1st respondent did number apply for the OTS 2007 Scheme.
OSFC and IPICOL, therefore, waived an amount of Rs.2,26,85,800/ and Rs.1,88,21,099 and gave the benefit of the OTS scheme to 1st respondent, subject to few other companyditions like period of payment, interest etc.
13376 of 2008 came up for final hearing on 21.4.2010, and the Court enquired whether 1st respondent was willing to pay Rs.1 Crore, as suggested by the Court on 4.12.2008.
Later, OSFC issued a seizure order dated 2.8.2010 of the property and that order was executed on 15.9.2010 and the possession of the unit was taken over as is where is basis.
1st respondent then, on 10.09.2008, filed a Writ Petition No.
We are of the view that the above mentioned facts had companysiderable bearing for rendering a just and proper judgment in writ petition No.
When Writ Petition came up for hearing on 07.04.2010, the Court had enquired whether 1st respondent would be still willing to deposit the amount of Rs.
1st respondent, as already stated, then approached the Orissa High Court and filed the present writ petition No.
OSFC, on 4.10.2007, requested 1st respondent to pay the settlement amount of Rs.1,16,21,200 with delayed payment of interest within 10 days.
Lease was valid for a period of 25 years with a renewable clause.
1st respondent did number companyply with that request as well, companysequently, OSFC, on 28.12.2007, withdrew the offer and advised 1st respondent to pay the entire dues as per the agreement, failing which 1st respondent was informed that recovery proceedings would be initiated for realization of the dues.
The 1st respondent had failed to companyply with those companyditions imposed, companysequently, OSFC and IPICOL had to withdraw the benefits extended under the OTS scheme.
OSFC lodged another OTS scheme in the year 2007.
Later, OSFC sent a demand numberice dated 22.8.2008 stating that the total loan outstanding as on 31.12.2007 was Rs.4,52,94,691 and 1st respondent was called upon to pay the amount, failing which it was informed that recovery proceedings would be initiated.
5 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition No.13376 of 2008 to quash the demand numberice dated 22.08.2008 where it was pointed out by OSFC that 1st respondent had number availed of all the benefits of the OTS scheme extended by the Corporation, companysequently they had to cancel the said scheme.
OSFC, during seizure, got prepared a valuation report dated 17.09.2010 from its panel valuer.
Opportunity was given to 1st respondent again to avail of the benefit of that scheme.
On 31.10.2008, OSFC had, however, issued a numberice recalling the entire amount along with interest and informed 1st respondent that in case of failure to make payment, further action would be taken under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act SFC Act .
Following are the facts and companyclusions overlooked by the Division Bench OSFC introduced an OTS scheme in the year 2006 and 1st respondent had applied for settlement of its loan account under that scheme.
13376 of 2008 and the order passed in Review Petition No.
Based upon the valuation report, off set price of the unit was fixed at Rs.1,75,45,000/ .
13376 of 2008.
The 1st respondent did number pay the amount demanded, hence, Section 29 of SFC Act was rightly invoked.
On 26.11.2008, IPICOL also made a request to OSFC to initiate proceedings under Section 29 of SFC Act and to take over the assets of the unit.
10 1st Respondent filed a representation before DDAC on 29.9.2010 which was rejected and the order of rejection was companymunicated vide letter dated 1.10.2010 and 1st respondent was informed that the assets were already taken over under Section 29 of SFC Act on 15.9.2010 and was put to public auction, with due intimation.
It is under such circumstances that sale letter dated 1.10.2010 was issued to the appellant with a companyy to all the Directors Promoters Guarantors of 1st respondent companypany.
OSFC issued a loan recall numberice to 1st respondent on 8.7.2011, since it did number companyply with the directions in WP No.
In case of failure on payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated dates, the one time settlement of dues companysidered in your favour including relief and companycession thereon shall be withdrawn without further reference to you.
1st Respondent did number avail of that opportunity as well.
1st respondent had also made a request to the Court for time up to 26.2.1010 so as to pay the amount of Rs.1 Crore.
13376 of 2008 and the order passed in Review Petition No.
Auction was companycluded as per rules and ultimately, the appellant was found to be the highest bidder at Rs.774,00,000 which was accepted and sale letter dated 1.10.2010 was issued to the appellant, who had paid the entire amount by 11.10.2010.
The respondent was also served with a show cause numberice dated 16.12.1994 followed by recall numberices dated 4.1.1995 and 13.3.1996.
99 of 2010 was companypletely overlooked by the Division Bench.
1st respondent did number companyply with even the above mentioned order.
Appreciation of Facts Litigations in companyrts are won or lost mainly on facts more on law.
Sale numberice, it is seen, was published in the Samaj a vernacular paper and also in the New India Express a widely circulated English newspaper on 18.09.2010 and the Corporation had received nine offers and after protracting negotiations with all the bidders, the offer of the appellant was accepted being the highest.
In companyrse of hearing of this review petition, the petitioner has offered only Rs.40,00,000/ Rupees forty lakhs to be deposited with the two Corporations against the outstanding dues of more than seven crore.
The Corporation before putting the appellant in possession again issued a numberice dated 21.9.2010 to 1st respondent enquiring whether he would match the offer.
1st respondent was informed of the sale numberice published in the daily newspapers requesting to clear up the dues before the DDAC meeting scheduled to be held on 29.9.2010.
The matter again came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 21.04.2010 on which the Court disposed of the writ petition directing 1st respondent to deposit Rs.50,00,000/ each before each of the two Corporations by 20.6.2010, failing which it was ordered that the Corporations would be at liberty to take such action as permissible under law under the State Financial Corporation Act.
99 of 2010 and the steps taken by the Corporations as permitted by the Division Bench.
1st respondent, however, did number take any steps to clear the outstanding dues, but preferred a Review Petition No.
Review Petition No.
OSFC on 04.10.2007 requested 1st respondent to pay the settlement amount of Rs.1,16,21,200/ with delayed payment of interest within 10 days.
emphasis added 13.
17711 of 2010.
Later, the sale numberice was published in the Daily newspapers, Samaj and the New Indian Express on 18.9.2010.
2513 of 1996 on 20.3.1996 before the High Court of Orissa to quash the recall numberice dated 13.3.1996 and for rehabilitation.
99 of 2010 for reviewing the order passed by the Orissa High Court on 21.4.2010 in Writ Petition No.
99 of 2010 filed by 1st respondent in writ petition No.
Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Orissa High Court on 4.12.2008, and the Court directed OSFC to maintain status quo and on 7.4.2010, the Court passed an ad interim order directing 1st respondent to inform as to whether they were willing to deposit the amount or Rs.1 Crore for companysideration of their claim under OTS.
The benefit of the said scheme was number availed of by 1st respondent, companysequently OSFC on 28.12.2007 withdrew that offer as well and advised 1st respondent to pay the entire dues as per the agreement, failing which it was informed that recovery proceedings would be initiated.
1 crore for companysideration of their claim under OTS.
IPICOL also approved the request for OTS at Rs.45 lacs with waiver of Rs.1,88,21,099 subject to certain terms and companyditions, which were as follows The OTS amount is Rs.45 lacs Rupees forty five lacs only and the resultant sacrifice s by way of waiver is Rs.1,88,21,099 Rupees one crore twelve lakhs seventeen thousand five hundred twenty nine only on account of funded interest and Rs.76,03,570/ Rupees seventy six lakhs three thousand five hundred seventy only on account of overdue interest.
99 of 2010 had attained finality and, companysequently, the orders dated 28.12.2007 and 01.10.2010 cancelling the proposal for OTS cannot be questioned.
1st respondent then submitted a proposal to DDAC, which was companysidered by DDAC on 29.9.2010 and the order was companymunicated to the 1st respondent.
On 21.9.2010, again, OSFC issued a numberice to 1st respondent to clear the outstanding dues with up to date interest of Rs.6,18,62,238/ companylected up to 30.6.2010 before Default cum Disposal Advisory Committee DDAC on 29.9.2010 so also to get the assets released.
The 1st respondent was, therefore, asked to liquidate the entire outstanding amount as on 30.6.2010, failing which 1st respondent was informed that OSFC would be initiating action under Section 29 of SFC Act.
Learned senior companynsel also pointed out that the companyditions stipulated in the above mentioned orders were also number companyplied with by 1st respondent, companysequently, the only companyrse open to 1st respondent was to pay the entire amount demanded by OSFC and IPICOL.
The OTS amount shall be paid within a period of 1 year from the date of this letter as per the schedule given below Rs.6,75,000 towards 25 of upfront payment including initial payment made by you within 30 days and balance 75 amounting to Rs.33,75,000/ within a period of 1 year in 4 quarterly installments, carrying simple interest 14 p.a.
On 18.03.2006, the benefit of the scheme was extended to 1st respondent and OSFC agreed in principle to settle the term loan account on payment of Rs.1,16,21,200/ , subject to certain companyditions.
The Court was informed that a petition had been filed on 21.4.2010 along with a bank draft of Rs.17,50,000 drawn in favour of the Registrar, Orissa High Court.
13376 of 2008 came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 22.9.2010.
The Orissa State Financial Corporation and IPICOL are directed to place fresh demand with the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, with regard to the amount of OTS offered in the companymunications dated 18.3.2006 and 3.4.2006 of the OSFC and IPICOL along with interest at the rate of 9 on the said amount from that date till the date of payment or at the rate of interest, stipulated under the OTS Scheme, 2007 in case of similarly placed persons.
The companyrt also numbericed that the mortgaged properties were taken over by OSFC invoking Section 29 of SFC Act and advertised for sale.
If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as directed, the OSFC and IPICOL are at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
On 21.09.2010, again OSFC issued a numberice to 1st respondent to clear the outstanding dues with up to date interest of Rs.6,18,62,238/ .
Even in the writ petition though the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.50,00,000/ Rupees fifty lakhs each with the two Corporations, the same was number companyplied with.
17711 of 2010, but those vital facts were companypletely overlooked by the Division Bench and it had also ignored the binding judgment of the companyordinate Bench rendered in writ petition No.
OSFC then issued a registered numberice dated 8.7.2010 to 1st respondent pointing that since it had failed to companyply with the above mentioned order of the Court, OSFC would be at liability to initiate proceeding under the SFC Act.
DDAC, in pursuance to the auction numberification in the newspapers, received altogether 9 bids and, after negotiations with the auctioneers, the offer of the appellant was found to be the highest at Rs.774 lacs, which was accordingly accepted OSFC delivered the possession of the land, building and machinery furniture and fixtures to the appellant vide possession letter dated 11.10.2010.
S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
OSFC, 2nd respondent herein, disbursed a term loan of Rs.51,27,200/ and loan in lieu of subsidy of Rs.23.30 lakhs to 1st respondent for establishing a hotel project at Janugarji, Balasore in the State of Odisha.
13376 of 2008 as well as the order in Review Petition No.
The project was jointly financed by OSFC and IPICOL, for which 1st respondent had entered into a loan agreement and mortgaged the title deeds and extended a registered lease deed dated 8.2.1988.
