The remedies under Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act are independent and can be pursued separately.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: C.R.P.No.2626 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur, in the Memo filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.21 of 2011 in S.F.C.O.P.No.1 of 2009.

C.R.P.No.2627 of 2012: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Perambalur, in the Memo filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.22 of 2011 in S.F.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise against the Order passed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the respondent/Corporation to withdraw S.F.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 with liberty to proceed against the properties of the respondents under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and to proceed against the properties of the respondent under Section 31, in future, if necessity arises.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner wanted to set up a “korai mat” factory at Perambalur. To that end, he made an application for loan to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the TIIC). The Corporation also sanctioned the loan for Rs.7,40,000/-. The petitioner executed a registered Mortgage Deed for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.07.1989 and also executed a Deed of hypothecation and Deed of Guarantee. The petitioner also mortgaged the land, building and machinery in favour of TIIC.

3. The petitioner required some more loan and therefore, approached for the second term loan over and above the first loan. The said loan was also granted to the tune of Rs.4,10,000/-. Since there was a default, the TIIC initiated proceedings for realisation of Rs.14,42,360/- for the first loan and Rs.27,56,809.95 for the second loan. To that end, it filed a petition on 01.10.2009 before the learned District Judge, Perambalur. This petition was filed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations ct.

4. The respondent filed a counter denying its liability. Pending the proceedings, the State Financial Corporation wanted to withdraw the proceedings in S.F.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009 with liberty to proceed against the properties under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and to proceed against the properties of the petitioner in future under Section 31 of the Act. This application was taken on file as I.A.No.22 of 2011. The petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the remedy under Section 29 is independent from remedy under Section 31 and therefore, the petitioner cannot withdraw the petition under Section 31 with liberty to proceed against the properties under Section 29 of the Act.

5. The learned Principal District Judge was pleased to grant the permission on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to invoke Section 29 and Section 31 for the sale of the properties, in case, there is a default committed on repayment of loan. Consequently, he allowed I.A.No.22 of 2011. Challenge is made to the said proceedings.

6. I heard Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.H.Adaikala Arockiaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. According to Mr.V.Ayyadurai, Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act are two methods in which the State Financial Corporation can bring the properties for sale and since the TIIC had opted to go under Section 31, it has to proceed only under Section 32 of the Act for sale of the properties. He would urge that Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act are remedies available to the TIIC and once they choose one remedy they are not not entitled to go to the other remedies.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the State Financial Corporation can exerc