Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against sale conducted by the respondents 1 and 2, under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act. The petitioner is a supplier of industrial machineries who had effected supply of various machineries to the third respondent company. The grievance of the petitioner is that while payments with respect to machineries supplied to 3rd respondent was pending, the respondents 1 and 2 had attached the plant and machineries of the third respondent company and sold in public auction on 30.8.1999, pursuant to Ext.P14 notice, in a proceedings initiated against the 3rd respondent, for realisation of amounts due in the loan account availed by the 3rd respondent from respondents 1 and 2. The complaint is that machineries with respect to which payments were pending and with respect to which there was no hypothication in favor of respondents 1 and 2 were also sold by respondents 1 and 2 without any authority. Hence the petitioner is seeking directions for payment of the sale price received by respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner.

3. In the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 dated 28.5.2008, it is contended that respondents 1 and 2 are in no way liable for payment of the amounts due to the petitioner from the third respondent. The supply of machineries as alleged by petitioner is denied by respondents 1 and 2. It is specifically contended that at the time when respondents 1 and 2 had taken over factory of the third respondent, those machineries which were already hypothicated by the third respondent in favour of the corporation alone were available,and the statement of the petitioner that the machineries in question were hypothicated to the corporation is not true and correct. It is also contended that the machineries supplied by the petitioner were found to be second hand and defective machineries while examination conducted by the technical officers of respondents 1 and 2, and those machineries were not hypothicated and nor had taken possession, at the time when the unit was taken over possession. It is also denied that the machineries were laying in the premises of third respondent at the time when the auction was conducted.
5. The next question to be considered is whether there was unauthorised sale conducted by the respondents 1 and 2 with respect to machineries belonging to the petitioner (kept in the premises of 3rd respondent) which were not hypothicated. Or in other words whether the respondents 1 and 2 had effected sale of machineries, which actually does not belong to the third respondent company. With respect to the above aspects the petitioner's pleadings are based on various documents like "certificate of registration of modification of charges", schedule attached along with the sale notice etc: On the other hand learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 stoutly refuted such allegations on the basis of dates with respect to supply of machineries and the dates of creation of such charges, which do not tally each other. Further such allegations are refuted on the contention that even if any such machineries were supplied to the third respondent, those machineries were not taken over possession or sold in the auction conducted.
6. From the rival contentions it is revealed that there exist dispute with respect to the above said factual aspects as to whether the sale included those machineries supplied by the petitioner with respect to which payments were pending and if any such machineries where included whether they were actually hypothicated or not. I am of the opinion that all these questions cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226. At the most the claim of the petitioner seems to be one in the nature of damages against respondents 1 and 2, based on an allegation that KFC had conducted unauthorised sale of machineries, which belonged to the petitioner or machineries upon which the petitioner has got a lien. Such a claim if to resolved, need adjudication on the basis of facts and figures, which I am afraid, this court can venture in the jurisdiction under Article 226.