It was also held that the BICICO had acted bonafide in taking action under Section 29 and selling the hotel.
The respondent No.
Affidavits have been filed by BICICO and the respondent No.
But by the time the writ petition was heard the suit had already been withdrawn a year earlier.
Subject to payment of the first instalment of Rs.
1 crore had already been paid.
The prayer for interim injunction was refused by the Sub Judge on 8th April 2002 and numberice was directed to be issued to BICICO.
An undertaking was also given by one of the Directors of the appellant to the Court to abide by the schedule so fixed.
6 within 10 days from the date of the issue of the letter, failing which the sale would be companycluded in favour of the respondent No.
The next day, a writ petition was filed by the appellant for the same reliefs as had been prayed for in the suit.
6 was negotiated and the companysideration was finalised at Rs.
The respondent No.
The property was again re valued on 24th January 2002 by BICICO.
95.50 lakhs to BICICO.
According to this valuation, the property was worth Rs.2.16 crore After this, a publication was made on 31st January 2002 offering the hotel for sale on an As is where is basis.
6 to pay the amount of Rs.
Proceedings were therefore companymenced by BICICO under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for sale of the hotel which had been mortgaged by the appellant to BICICO by way of security against the loan.
6 on 7th March, 2002.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant after rejecting the explanation given by the appellant that the two proceedings had been initiated independently by the two Directors of the appellant each without the others knowledge.
On 26th March 2002, a second sale numberice was published by BICICO in respect of the hotel on As is where is basis.
Offers were required to be made by 28th February 2002.
1 Crore.
6 had deposited the entire companysideration of Rs.
The demand draft of Rs.
An application for interim relief was made to restrain BICICO from selling the hotel.
On 4th April 2002, a suit was filed by the appellant before the Court of the Sub Judge, Patna, inter alia, challenging the action of BICICO.
Nevertheless a letter accepting the respondent No.6s offer was issued by BICICO on 31st March 2002 which was a Sunday asking the respondent No.
6 and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.10,000/ by way of companyts to the respondent number 6.
An interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th April 2002 after hearing companynsel for the appellant as well as for BICICO by which a schedule of repayment by instalments was prescribed.
But when a third valuation was again made at the instance of BICICO in February 2002, the total value of the property including of the building and land was only Rs.94.81 lakhs.
1 crore was deposited with the Registry of this Court by the appellant and the amount has since been invested in a nationalised bank in a short term fixed deposit.
The difference between Rs.94.50 lakhs and Rs.1 crore had already been paid to BICICO by the respondent No.
However, the prayer of the appellant for a one time settlement was rejected by BICICO under the settlement policy.
6 apparently received the letter on the same day from BICICO and also replied on that day stating that the amount of Rs.
Under this numberice offers were to be given by way of a sealed companyer by 29th March 2002 i.e. within three days.
The hotel was valued on 3rd July 2001 by BICICO through its valuer.
The Division Bench held that the Court would number interfere with the Single Judges order because of the material suppression of facts by the appellant.
6 offered to purchase the hotel for Rs.41 lakhs.
1 crore by way of bank draft draft with the Registry of this Court.
On 30th March 2002, which was a Saturday, the offer of the respondent No.
It appears from the records that on the same day the second sale numberice was published, the respondent No.
The appellant may withdraw the interest on the amount of Rs.
However, the outstanding amount, due from the appellant according to BICICO as on March 2002, was Rs.191.3 lakhs including interest.
10 lakhs in terms of the Courts order to BICICO but the possession of the hotel was number handed back to the appellant.
As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief.
When the special leave petition was initially entertained by this Court, we directed the issuance of numberice subject to the appellants depositing a sum of Rs.
This numberice has been impugned before us.
10 lakhs possession of the hotel was to be handed over by BICICO to the appellant.
By what, according to BICICO, was only an in house assessment, the value of the hotel was estimated at Rs.1.58 crores.
Therefore by the 26th March, 2002, before the last date for receiving offers was over and the tenders were opened, the Respondent No.
1 crore by 31st March 2002 failing which its offer would stand rejected.
As the issue of suppression was the only ground on which the High Court has rejected the appellants plea for relief, we would ordinarily have set aside the order of the High Court in view of our finding and remanded back to the High Court for decision of the matter on merits.
While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed BICICO to companysider the appellants application for one time settlement in accordance with law.
BICICO was directed to hand over the possession of the hotel to respondent No.
The appellant applied for settlement of its outstanding dues.
From time to time upto 2001 2002, the appellant repaid about Rs.14.23 lakh to BICICO.
Of these three days 28th March 2002 was Holi and 29th March 2002 was Good Friday.
Arising out of SLP C No.
According to the appellant, BICICO only disbursed a sum of Rs.44.56 lakhs in instalments as a result of which the appellant companyld number companyplete the project without a huge companyt overrun.
It may be mentioned that during this period, BICICO announced a settlement policy under which companycerns which had taken a loan less than 10 years earlier companyld settle their dues by paying double the original principal amount lent by the BICICO to such defaulters.
The appellant paid a sum of Rs.
10766/2003 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The offer was rejected by BICICO because the bid was too low.
After this, a letter was written again on the same day by BICICO to the appellant and its two Directors asking them to match the offer of respondent No.
1 crore.
The appellant had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.70 lakhs by the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as BICICO in April 1992 for financing the companystruction of a hotel.
6 made an offer to purchase the hotel for Rs.95.50 lakhs and in fact paid Rs.
