Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yamuna Enterprises, Yamunanagar vs Haryana Financial Corporation And Ors. on 23 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR2002P&H231, AIR 2002 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 231, (2002) 2 RECCIVR 88 (2002) 2 PUN LR 194, (2002) 2 PUN LR 194
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has approached the Court with the prayer that the notice issued by the respondent-Haryana Financial Corporation for sale of plot measuring 649 square meters be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
2. On September 22, 1995 a loan of Rs. 7.50 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. However, an amount of Rs. 6.55 lacs only was released after the execution of a Hypothecation deed dated January 20, 1996, the petitioner had also given a collateral security in the form of equitable mortgage of plot measuring 649 square meters. There was default in repayment. On August 13, 1997 the Corporation took over the hypothecated assets viz. computers etc. which had been installed by the petitioner. These have not been sold till today. On October 23, 2000 the Corporation published a notice in the Daily Tribune for the sale of land measuring 649 square meters. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. Later, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation had taken over all the computers which had been installed with the amount of loan and its own funds by the petitioner. The value of the computer etc. had been assessed by the Corporation at Rs.2.50 lacs. Its failure to sell the equipment for a period of more than four years has resulted in the depreciation of the value of the goods and further increase in the petitioners' liability. Counsel submits that the petitioner should be given credit for the assessed value from the date the equipment had been taken over the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioners' liability should be determined after the grant of an opportunity. In case the petitioner fails to make the payment, the Corporation may proceed to recover the amount in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Sehgal does not dispute the fact that the equipment was take over by the respondents on August 13, 1997. He also concedes that the value was assessed at Rs. 2.50 lacs. It is not disputed that despite the lapse of more than four years the goods have not been sold. Still further, it is the admitted position that the petitioner's liability is being continuously raised on account of the levy of interest and penal interest. It is to recover the dues as determined by the Corporation that the plot which was mortgaged by way of collateral security is sought to be sold.
5. It is, undoubtedly, true that public interest must override considerations of an individual's interest. Public dues must be recovered. However, it appears equally clear to us that the action of the authorities must be fair, just and reasonable. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the goods were taken over on August 13, 1997. The value was assessed at Rs. 2.50 lacs. Despite the lapse of four years the goods have not been sold. In the meantime, the computers have admittedly gathered dust and the value has depreciated. We are not surprised that now the offer of the purchaser is for a few thousand rupees only.
6. Should the petitioner suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondents? Mr. Sehgal submits that the Corporation was unable to sell as it could not find a buyer for the assessed value.
7. When were the goods advertised? What were the offers received? What further action was taken? Nothing has been disclosed in the written statement. Yet, the fact remains that the goods have remained in the custody of the respondents for the last more than four years. The petitioner has been deprived of the use of the computers and its liability has continued to mount. In this situation, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that it is entitled to a credit of Rs. 2.50 lacs from August 1997 is reasonable. It is admitted position that after the take over the respondents had assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 2.50 lacs. If the value has gone down on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents the petitioner should not be made to suffer.
8. In view of the above, we direct that the petitioner shall be given credit for Rs.2.50 lacs with effect from August 1997. Its liability shall be determined in accordance with law and the terms of the agreement. After re-determining the liability, whatever is found due shall be recovered by following the prescribed procedure.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Ashutosh Mohunta, J.