1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner is the guarantor of a transaction of loan entered into between the respondent Corporation and M/s. Deesa Agro Industries Ltd. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the guarantor and the property of 11-Rudravadan Bunglow, Thaltej, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “property in question”) was by way of equitable mortgage given in collateral security to the transaction of law. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that as the payment was not made of the loan transaction by the principal borrower, the action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act”) was initiated against the petitioner and the property in question. As per the respondent Corporation, the opportunity was also given to the petitioner to pay up the amount, but the amount was also not paid. Therefore, the notice under Section 29 of the Act was issued on 15.02.2000 calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount of the loan of Rs.77.34 Lakhs failing which the action under Section 29 of the Act for taking possession and sale of the property. It appears that thereafter, again the notice was also issued on 09.03.2000 of similar type and at that stage, the petitioner has approached to this Court with the prayer to quash and set aside the notices dated 15.02.2000 and 09.03.2000 issued by the respondent Corporation seeking to act against the petitioner for recovery of the amount.

2. It appears that this Court entertained the petition, but no interim relief was granted on the aspects of further action as per the impugned notice. It appears that the Corporation has proceeded under Section 29 of the Act against the property in question and has taken over the possession of the property from the petitioner on 25.01.2000. The Corporation also proceeded to sell the property by giving advertisement and as per the Corporation, 15 attempts were made to sell the property by giving various advertisement, but ultimately, the offer of the respondent No.2 was received for Rs.20.25 Lakhs, though initial offer of respondent No.2 was Rs.19 Lakhs. The Corporation had given opportunity to the petitioner to give matching offer. In response thereto, the petitioner communicated to the respondent Corporation that she was agreeable to purchase the property for Rs.20.25 Lakhs, but the Corporation instead of accepting the said offer, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.01.2005 that if the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.50 Lakhs, then the further action can be taken in this regard. The petitioner called upon the Corporation to give details of the terms and conditions of such offer vide letter dated 31.01.2005, but it appears that the Corporation did not respond and in the meantime, on 22.02.2005, the Corporation accepted the offer of the respondent No.3 for the amount of Rs.20.25 Lakhs and the sale certificate was issued and the possession was also handed over on 17.03.2005 to the respondent No.3 by the Corporation. It appears that thereafter, the Sale Deed is also executed on 03.05.2005 by the Corporation in favour of the respondent No.3. As the matter was pending before this Court, the petitioner thereafter, has amended the petition by inserting the prayer of setting aside of the sale proceedings of 11-Rudravan Bunglow, the property in question and the petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent Corporation to pay the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs on account of the damage caused to the furniture and fixtures and other household articles of the petitioner. At that stage, the matter is being considered for final disposal.

3. It may be recorded that it is the case of the respondent No.2 that the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs has been spent for making renovation in the property and the details are at para 5.23 of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. It also appears from the Sale Deed that the expenses of Rs.1.7