M/S Rise Press Through Proprietor ... vs Delhi Financial Corporation
2011 Latest Caselaw 1664 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 23rd March, 2011

+                    W.P.(C) 10474/2009 & CM No.9202/2009 (for stay)

         M/S RISE PRESS
         THROUGH PROPRIETOR
         SQN LDR RAVI INDER SYAL (RETD)                            ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Petitioner in person.

                                      versus

         DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION              ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may               No.
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              No.

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             No.
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claims to have taken a loan of `3,85,000/- from the

respondent in the year 1982-83 for setting up a Letter Press Printing Unit.

It is further the case of the petitioner that he took a plot of land in Shalimar

Bagh Industrial Area on verbal understanding from its owner that the

petitioner till purchase will pay `2,000/- per month for the said land and

set up his Unit therein and subsequently purchased the said land on

General Power of Attorney basis; that the machinery and equipment

installed therein was hypothecated with the respondent; that the respondent

did not release the total of the sanctioned loan inspite of repeated

reminders; that in or about the year 1986 the earlier owner of the aforesaid

plot of land filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the property

aforesaid and colluded with the respondent and the respondent in

pursuance to the said collusion sealed the property of the petitioner and

handed over the documents of purchase of property lying therein to the

erstwhile owner; that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent and

mandatory injunction against the respondent in this regard; that the

respondent in the year 1989 threw out the machinery, stocks etc. of the

petitioner lying in the premises aforesaid and the earlier owner took

possession of the premises; that the petitioner from time to time was

arrested for non-payment of the balance dues but inspite of repeated

reminders of the petitioner, the respondent did not furnish any accounts to

the petitioner. The cause of action for the present writ petition was the

notice dated 13th May, 2009 issued by the Asstt. Collector of the Govt. of

NCT of Delhi informing the petitioner that upon non-payment of

`7,81,613.91p due to the respondent, the petitioner shall be arrested. This

writ petition has been filed by the proprietor of the petitioner in person

seeking the relief of directing the respondent to account for the assets of

the petitioner taken over and to summon all the records relating to the

petitioner in Court and to settle the accounts with the petitioners.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide ex parte ad-interim order

dated 28th July, 2009 the proceedings initiated against the petitioner stayed.

The said order has continued in force till now. On 2 nd March, 2010 liberty

was granted to the petitioner to visit the office of the respondent to explore

the possibilities of out of Court settlement. The counsel for the respondent

informs that the petitioner in the said meeting only asked for the

documents and which have been provided to him.

3. The petitioner appearing in person and the counsel for the

respondent have been heard.

4. The respondent in its counter affidavit has denied the averments in

the petition and pleaded that upon non-payment by the petitioner of the

loan amount, proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial

Corporations Act, 1951 were initiated on 10th March, 1986 and the

possession of the Unit taken over on 18th September, 1986 but owing to the

dispute between the petitioner and the landlord the machinery could be

taken out only after the order of eviction was passed against the petitioner

and the said machinery was disposed of in the year 2004 for `62,229/-. It is

contended that the recovery notice under Section 32G of the Act has been

issued for the balance amount.

5. The petitioner has filed a detailed rejoinder together with the copies

of the documents since made available to the petitioner.

6. The petitioner, on enquiry as to the fate of the suit, informs that the

same was dismissed.

7. Needless to state that the various disputes raised by the petitioner

arguing in person of collusion, mismanagement in sale, in taking over the

assets etc; of the respondent taking over assets beyond those hypothecated

cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. I have enquired from the

petitioner whether he requires a direction for supply of any further

documents by the respondent to him. He states that the accounts of period

prior to the year 1987 have not been made available to him. However a

perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner himself shows that the

statement of account made available to the petitioner is w.e.f. 1 st April,

1984 i.e. from soon after the disbursement of the loan amount to the

petitioner. Need is therefore not felt to issue the said direction also.

8. The petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable for the

aforesaid reason with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies.

However to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies, the interim

order in this petition shall remain in force till 30 th April, 2011.

9. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits and the fora

if any approached by the petitioner shall consider the matter in accordance

with law.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MARCH 23rd, 2011 pp..