Skip to content


Jagannath Minichem Private Ltd. Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurisdiction Case No. 7253 of 2000
Judge
Reported in2001(II)OLR67
ActsState Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Sections 29(4)
AppellantJagannath Minichem Private Ltd.
RespondentOrissa State Financial Corporation and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Sharma and B.K. Biswal
Respondent AdvocateSatyajit Patnaik and Biswajit Das
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments..........corporation and established an industry. the industrial concern was seized under section 29 of the state financial corporation act and subsequently it has been sold to a third party. the petitioner has stated that the amount due from the petitioner was rs. 9,65,00/- and as such the corporation should pay the balance amount to the petitioner in accordance with section 29(4) of the state financial corporation act. the learned counsel appearing for the corporation has submitted that though the unit in question has been sold, the purchaser has not yet paid the entire amount and as soon as the entire amount is recovered from the purchaser and adjustments are made in accordance with section 29(4), the balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.3. section 29(4) of the state financial.....
Judgment:

P.K. Misra, J.

1. Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the excess amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest.

2. It is not disputed that the present petitioner had obtained loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation and established an industry. The industrial concern was seized Under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and subsequently it has been sold to a third party. The petitioner has stated that the amount due from the petitioner was Rs. 9,65,00/- and as such the Corporation should pay the balance amount to the petitioner in accordance with Section 29(4) of the State Financial Corporation Act. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that though the unit in question has been sold, the purchaser has not yet paid the entire amount and as soon as the entire amount is recovered from the purchaser and adjustments are made in accordance with Section 29(4), the balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.

3. Section 29(4) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, is extracted hereunder :

'29. (4) Where any action has been taken against an industrial concern under to the provisions of Sub-section (1), all costs, charges and expenses which in the opinion of the Financial Corporation have been properly incurred by it as incidental thereto shall be recoverable from the industrial concern and the money which is received by it shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by it in trust to be applied firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and, secondly, in discharge of the debt due to the Financial Corporation and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto.'

From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that only after adjustment of all other dues indicated therein, the surplus amount is to be paid to the person concerned.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the auction had taken place in the year 1998 and the Corporation is not taking any effective steps to realise the amount from the subsequent purchaser. It goes without saying that if the subsequent purchaser has defaulted in making any payment, prompt steps in accordance with law should be taken by the Corporation so that the amount can be realised. It is not to be forgotten that Under Section 29(4), the Corporation has to act as a trustee. Therefore, it goes without saying that the 'Corporation should be vigilant about the present position and take prompt steps for realisation of the amount so that after adjustment of all dues, the balance amount can be paid to the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //