Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The petitioner has disclosed letters commencing from 14th January, 2002 appearing at pages 150-155 of the writ petition containing demands made by WBFC for payment and in default thereof proposing to take measures for recovery. These letters, four in number, do not appear to have been replied to by the writ petitioner. WBFC in the circumstances took over possession of the assets on 21st March, 2005 and sold the same to a third party at a sum of Rs. 1 crores 40 lacs. The writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid action of WBFC by way of a writ petition which was registered as W.P. 6567 (W) of 2005 wherein an order dated 30th March, 2005 was passed granting liberty to the petitioners to take back possession with the help of police. Directions were also issued for filing affidavits. WBFC preferred an appeal. Before the Appellate Court the third party purchaser intervened and refused to be involved in the complications and insisted upon cancellation of the sale and refund of the consideration paid to WBFC. The sale in the circumstances was set aside; the consideration paid was refunded to the third party and the writ petition was also disposed of granting liberty to the parties to take steps as they may be advised. The Appellate Court has, however, expressed its displeasure against the ad interim order dated 30th March, 2005 in the following words.

10. After the sale was made and unmade, after possession was taken and given back, the WBFC has issued the notice dated 5th July, 2005 seeking to re-possess the entire assets, both movable and immovable, on 20th July, 2005. The notice dated 5th July, 2005 was challenged in the present writ petition. An ad interim order dated 19th July, 2005 was passed staying the operation of the notice dated 5th July, 2005. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 29th March, 2006. The writ petition was restored to its original number and file by an order dated 3rd April, 2006. However, possession of the unit had already been taken during the interregnum by the WBFC.

(c) Demand for a sum of Rs. 74,22,259.31/- on account of interest is unconscionable and mala fide.
(d) WBFC is seeking to repeat its illegal and wrongful dispossession.

12. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has not disputed the fact that the WBFC is a mortgagee in respect of the property in question. His contention however is that Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act has no manner of application to the facts of this case. In support of his submission he relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case Kaveri Meat Export Ltd. v. Kerala Financial Corporation wherein the following view was expressed.

C:

24. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the WBFC is a mortgagee of the property in question. A mortgagee is clothed with legal right to put up the mortgaged property for sale and to recover its dues. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Kavery Meat Export Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Basu does not lend any assistance for the simple reason that the properties in that case were sold by WBFC itself in exercise of its right as a mortgagee and it is in the peculiar facts of that case that it was held that steps could not be taken against the purchasers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Once it is accepted that WBFC is a mortgagee in respect of the properties in question right of the WBFC under Section 29 to proceed against the mortgaged properties cannot be disputed. WBFC has a choice to proceed either under Section 29 or under Section 31 but the writ petitioner cannot take any exception to steps under Section 29 initiated by WBFC. In the case of Rose Potteries v. W.B. Financial Corporation it was held that "the provisions of Section 29 are similar to the power given to a mortgagee under Section 69 of T.P. Act."