IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that communications regarding outstanding dues do not equate to recovery orders, especially when a civil suit on the same matter is pending.

ORDER :

(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :

1.1. Further affidavit filed by the respondent – Gujarat State Financial Corporation dated 06.08.2024 tendered by Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, is taken on record.

1.2. Draft Amendment dated 19.12.2023 is taken on record. The same is allowed and directed to be carried-out forthwith.

2. Heard Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein has challenged the action of the respondent of initiating the recovery of an amount of Rs.62,53,033/- vide notice/communication/orders dated 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023, duly produced at Annexure-A (collectively). It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid action undertaken by the respondent is against the settled principles of natural justice.

4.1. Briefly stated that, it is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner had purchased the Industrial Unit/Plot on 25.03.1997 under an auction conducted by the respondent – Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,24,932/- towards the full sale consideration.

4.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that one of the directors of the petitioner- M/s. Ashwin Wire Limited, Shri Yadsingh N. Rajput had resigned and had shown his willingness to persuade the respondent – Corporation to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein.

4.3. The respondent herein on 13.03.1997 issued a letter for change of name of the purchaser- petitioner herein. The petitioner herein preferred a petition being Special civil Application No. 2090 of 1999 against the respondent, restraining them from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, towards recovery of any outstanding amount, which came to be disposed of, by order dated 07.12.1999.

4.4. It is further the case of the petitioner that, one blank cheque dated 20.03.2000 came to be issued by the petitioner to the respondent confirming the outstanding amount payable to the respondent and on depositing the said cheque by the respondent, No Due Certificate shall be issued to the petitioner and also the sale deed shall also be executed in favour of the petitioner.

4.5. The said cheque is not deposited by the respondent Corporation. On 05.01.2000, the respondent issued the certificate with respect to possession of the shed/property.

4.6. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2546 of 2001 came to be filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondent for execution of the sale deed. On 15.03.2001, the accounts with respect to the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner came to be given by the respondent. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 10.02.2004, petition being Special Civil Application No. 2546 of 2001 came to be withdrawn by the petitioner, in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, with a liberty to file a fresh petition seeking direction against the respondent, for execution of the sale deed after the criminal case is over.

4.7. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 26.07.2002, a demand draft for an amount of Rs.33,468/- came to be issued by the petitioner, as outstanding dues and the same came to be accepted by the respondent. That the accounts between the petitioner and the respondent came to be settled way back in the year 2002. However, the respondent was not executing the sale deed and no process was initiated by the respondent, despite clearance of all outstanding dues by the petitioner.

4.8. On 25.08.2014, the respondent – Corporation issued a letter regarding execution of the sale deed, upon payment of the alleged outstanding dues payable by the petitioner. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent- GSFC to issue No Due Certificate, since all the accounts stood settled by depositing an amount of Rs.33,468/-. On 23.02.2016, the respondent had given the account de