JUDGMENT :

R. K. Abichandani, J.

The appellant, Gujarat State Financial Corporation, challenges the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1988, passed by a learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.253 of 1987, allowing the petition and directing the appellant-Corporation to pay the residue of the money received by it, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner, by sale of the factory, named "R.K. Textiles", owned by the original petitioner. It was directed that the Corporation shall finalise the accounts within three months after adjusting Rs.5,13,976.98 Ps. as found due on 15th January, 1982 and by taking into consideration the fact that the Corporation had realised Rs.7,50,000/- by sale of the said factory. It was also directed that the appellant-Corporation shall pay directly to the G.I.D.C. Rs.5,609/- towards its dues as on 15.1.1982. The statement on behalf of the petitioner that he had agreed to pay the amount due to Dena Bank and G.I.I.C. was recorded, with an observation that it would be open for the appellant-Corporation to inform G.I.I.C. and Dena Bank that the petitioner had so agreed.

2. The petitioner was the owner of a factory, known as "R.K. Textiles" in the G.I.D.C. Estate, Kalol and since he failed to pay the instalments of the loan taken from the appellant-Corporation, the factory came to be sold under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 by the appellant-Corporation for an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- to one Lalitkumar R. Chheda in January, 1982. Initially, the purchaser had deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- and as per the arrangement between the appellant-Corporation and the purchaser, remaining amount was to be paid within a period of two years. Since the amount due to the respondent-petitioner was not paid to him after settlement of account with the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.4593 of 1984 and in that matter, notice came to be discharged on 23rd November, 1984, with an observation that the question of issuing suitable directions against the appellant-Corporation for paying residue of the amount of the purchase price to the respondent-petitioner under Section 29(4) of the Act had not arisen at that stage and the claim was premature in view of the statement made on behalf of the appellant-Corporation to the effect that it would take suitable action for recovery of unpaid instalments by the purchaser. Since the amount was not paid to the respondent-petitioner despite such statement, the petitioner filed the present petition, seeking direction on the appellant-Corporation to pay him the balance of the amount out of the money realised from the sale of the property in question.

3. The appellant-Corporation contested the petition, contending that as the respondent-petitioner had failed to make payment of the loan, it had exercised its power under Section 29(1) of the said Act and took over the possession of the assets of the petitioner's unit. Thereafter, by issuing an advertisement, the unit was sold on 26.11.1981 to the highest offerer for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. As no purchaser was ready to make down payment, the highest bidder was informed to deposit one-third of the amount immediately by the Corporation by its letter dated 4.1.1982 and accordingly, he deposited Rs.2,50,000/- and necessary documents were executed on 15th January, 1982 for payment of the balance amount. Admittedly, the balance amount was treated as if it was a loan advanced to the purchaser, on which interest was payable by the purchaser to the appellant-Corporation. The dues payable by the respondent-petitioner to the appellant-Corporation, inclusive of interest, penal interest, etc., were worked out by the appellant-Corporation at Rs.5,13,976.98 Ps. On 15.1.1982, the total outstanding dues of G.I.I.C. Limited from the respondent-petitioner were Rs.76,252.46 Ps. and that of Dena Bank was Rs.54,331.99 Ps. According to the Corporation, it had receive