Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arjun Palit vs West Bengal Financial Corporation & Ors on 15 July, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
15.07.2014
Item No.27
SB
W.P. 19398 (W) of 2014
Arjun Palit
Vs.
West Bengal Financial Corporation & Ors.
Mr. D. K. Samanta,
Mr. B. Samanta.................for the petitioner.
Mr. A. K. Sur.................for the WBFC.
Md. Hafiz Ali................for the respondents 4 and 5.
The petitioner's father had entered into an agreement for sale with the West Bengal Financial Corporation for purchase of a property of a defaulter (M/s. Iswari Ceremics) on 17.01.1990. In terms of such agreement, the entire consideration amount was required to be paid by 23.02.1990. The petitioner's father did not perform his part of the obligations as adumbrated in such agreement; on the contrary, by a letter dated 07.04.1990 (produced by Mr. Sur, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation), he withdrew the offer. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation by its letter dated 15.11.1990 (also produced by Mr. Sur) informed the petitioner's father that unless the payments as reflected therein are made, the sale agreement would be treated as cancelled and the payment received from his end would stand forfeited; also, appropriate action for recovery of other dues would be initiated against him.
2The petitioner was two years old when the sale agreement was executed and, therefore, may not have had knowledge of these developments. The petitioner's father passed away in 2006. More than eight years later, he made an offer to the Corporation vide his letter dated 31.03.2014. He proposed that the property in question may be sold to him on accepting a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. The Corporation responded by its letter dated 11.04.2014. The petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.2,26,15,905.15/- within 15 days or else the fixed assets of M/s. Iswari Ceremics would be placed in an open auction along with other offers and the highest bidder would be given a chance to purchase the fixed assets thereof.
In this writ petition, the petitioner voices a grievance that the Corporation has now decided to sell the property in question to the private respondents at a total consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- pursuant to the sale advertisement published in the 'Business Standard' and 'Sambad Pratidin' on 20.03.2014.
According to Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the said two newspapers are not having wide circulation and, therefore, the petitioner could not make an offer for purchasing the said property. That apart, he contends that the Corporation should have communicated in the response dated 11.04.2014 that an advertisement had in fact been published and that he would be entitled to make his offer.
According to Mr. Sur, the petitioner has no locus standi to present this writ petition as his father had withdrawn his offer. Moreover, he 3 submits that the private respondents are the successors-in-interest of the original borrower who owned M/s. Iswari Ceremics and the Corporation not having received any other offer pursuant to the 'sale advertisement', accepted the offer of the private respondents. It had decided to sell the property to them upon accepting the offer price of Rs.20,00,000/-, because it was the sole offer.
Having heard learned advocates for the parties, I am of the view that no case for interference has been set up. 'Business Standard' and 'Sambad Pratidin' are not newspapers having no wide circulation. The petitioner having not made any offer pursuant to the advertisement that was issued, must blame himself therefor. That apart, the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the agreement dated 17.01.1990. The petitioner's father had withdrawn his offer and, therefore, with such withdrawal and the forfeiture of the earnest money as well as cancellation of the sale agreement by the Corporation as far back as on 15.11.1990, the petitioner can have no subsisting right to claim any priority to purchase the said property.
The writ petition is without merit. The same stands dismissed, without costs.
The letters dated 07.04.1990 and 15.11.1990 referred to above shall be retained with the records.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties as early as possible.
(DIPANKAR DATTA, J.) 4