Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
MICRO HOTEL P. LTD. - Appellant
VERSUS
HOTEL TORRENTO LIMITED & ORS. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6347 of 2012 {Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 32610 of 2011} with Civil Appeal No. 6348 of 2012 {Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1125 of 2012}
Decided on : 06-09-2012
(b) Administration of Justice – Appreciation of facts – Court has to reason out truth from falsehood – For this, facts should be correctly placed and appreciated – Then law should be applied correctly – If facts are not correctly appreciated, wrong inferences will be reached. (Para 20)
(c) State Financial Corporation Act – Section 29 – State Financial Corporation complying with procedural requirements as also directions of earlier Division Bench in writ petition No. 13376 of 2008 – No infirmity – Impugned order and directions of the other Division Bench overlooking vital facts and misreading (2011) 4 SCC 171 wrong and illegal. (Para 28)
(2002) 3 SCC 496; (2011) 4 SCC 171 – Relied upon
(1993) 2 SCC 279 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this case is whether the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court was justified in directing Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC) and Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Odisha Ltd. (IPICOL) to offer afresh the benefit of One-Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) to M/s Hotel Torrento Limited, 1st respondent herein, which had earlier been offered vide communications’ dated 18.3.2006 and 3.4.2006, but was not availed off by complying with the terms and conditions stipulated therein.
The further question is whether the High Court was right in ordering dispossession of the appellant (auction purchaser) and put 1st respondent back in possession.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is wrong and illegal.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.
2. Common questions arise for consideration in both these appeals and hence we are disposing of both the appeals by a common judgment.
3. We are, in these appeals, called upon to consider the question whether the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court was justified in directing Orissa State Financial Corporation (OSFC) and Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Odisha Ltd. (IPICOL) to offer afresh the benefit of One-Time Settlement Scheme (OTS) to M/s Hotel Torrento Limited, 1st respondent herein, which had earlier been offered vide communications’ dated 18.3.2006 and 3.4.2006, but was not availed off by complying with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The further question is whether the High Court was right in ordering dispossession of the appellant (auction purchaser) and put 1st respondent back in possession.
4. This case has a chequered history, therefore, it is necessary to examine the facts at some length to appreciate the real controversy between the parties and to reach a proper and just decision, on facts as well as on law. OSFC, 2nd respondent herein, disbursed a term loan of Rs.51,27,200/- and loan in lieu of subsidy of Rs.23.30 lakhs to 1st respondent for establishing a hotel project at Janugarji, Balasore in the State of Odisha. The project was jointly financed by OSFC and IPICOL, for which 1st respondent had entered into a loan agreement and mortgaged the title deeds and extended a registered lease deed dated 8.2.1988. Lease was valid for a period of 25 years with a renewable clause. There was default in repayment of the loan amount, which led OSFC issuing a demand notice to 1st respondent on 7.2.1991, followed by a recall notice dated 30.11.1991. The respondent was also served with a show cause notice dated 16.12.1994 followed by recall notices dated 4.1.1995 and 13.3.1996.
5. 1st respondent then filed a Writ Application No. 2513 of 1996 on 20.3.1996 before the High Court of Orissa to quash the recall notice dated 13.3.1996 and for rehabilitation. The High Court disposed of that writ application with a direction to respondents 2 and 5 (OSFC & IPICOL) to consider the request of 1st respondent for rehabilitation package. On 9.3.2006, an OTS scheme was introduced by OSFC and 1st respondent applied for settlement of its loan account under that scheme. On 18.3.2006, the benefit of the scheme was extended to 1st respondent by OSFC and agreed in principle to settle the term loan account on payment of Rs.1,16,21,200/- on or before 18.4.2006, subject to certain terms and conditions which were as follows:
1. The settlement amount shall either be paid in one lump sum on or before Dt. 18.04.06 (within 30 days of this settlement order) with 3% discount on the settlement amount. OR Installments as per the sequence mentioned below:
(a) Up front payment of Rs.23,61,400.00 (Rupees twenty three lakh sixty one thousand four hundred only) (i.e.25% of settlement amount less initial deposit) shall be paid along with the acceptance letter (format enclosed herewith) on or before Dt. 16.04.06, within 30 days.
(b) The balance settlement amount of Rs.87,15,900.00 (75%) shall be paid on or before Dt. 15.06.06.
2. Any other expenses chargeable/incurred/debited in the loan accounts towards misc. expenses on L/A with effect from Dt. 11.07.05 (date of application) till the final settlement of loan accounts shall be paid by you along with the settlement amount.
3. It may be noted that (NDC) can only be issued in your favour after liquidation of all the loans availed.
4. You shall have to submit the consent/decree/permission/withdrawal order (wherever applicable) before issue of No Due Certificate (NDC).
In case of failure on payment of the aforesaid amount within the stipulated dates, the one time settlement of dues considered in your favour including relief and concession thereon shall be withdrawn without further reference to you.”
6. IPICOL also approved the request f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
