A borrower must fulfill debt obligations despite financial hardship; equitable relief is not warranted without demonstrable legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

The tone of this judgment can be set by quoting what Richard Brinsley Sheridan, an Irish dramatist of 18^th century had said when asked to pay his dues:

“It is not my interest to pay the principal, nor my principle to pay the interest”

These two petitions by the borrower, in essence seek to lay a challenge to the demand and recovery of a huge sums of money in crore of rupees, lent by the Orissa State Financial Corporation under the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act 1951.

i. In W.P.(C) No.4296 of 2024, the prayer column runs as under:

“(a) Quash the impugned letter dated 24.01.2024 as under Annexure-15;

(b) Direct the Opp. Party - Corporation to carry out a joint verification to assess the damage cause to the seized unit of the petitioner,

(c) Direct the Opp. Party - corporation to adjust /factor in the loss caused to the petitioner due to the damage in the seized unit, as against the principal amount and thereafter re-calculate the outstanding dues of the petitioner;

(d) Direct the opp. Party - corporation to allow the petitioner to submit a fresh OTS proposal on the basis of the re-calculate dues as mentioned in (c) above;”

ii. In W.P.(C) No.17064 of 2025, the prayer column texted as under:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ or writs in the nature of a writ of "mandamus" thereby to quash the impugned letter dated 13.06.2025 as at Annexure-16;

And be further pleased to pass any such other or further order/ orders as would be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

2. A THUMBNAIL DESCRIPTION OF FACTS

2.1. A term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) only was sanctioned by the O.Ps-Orissa State Financial Corporation on 30.03.1984. The same was handed to the petitioner in instalments, first of which began on 13.05.1985 and the last on 01.06.1987. On his application, petitioner got sanctioned Additional Term Loan of Rs.2,27,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only was sanctioned on 30.05.1988 and the same was disbursed on 03.02.1990. As on 31.12.2021, Rs.5,90,81,363/- (Rupees Five Crore Ninety Lakh Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three) only was quantified as the outstanding liability.

2.2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had applied for One Time Settlement (OTS) under the OTS-07 Scheme dated 16.02.2009. However, the same was processed by the OSFC under the new scheme of 2011, which had duplicated substantially the terms & conditions of 2009 scheme. The petitioner was before this Court twice earlier, i.e., in W.P.(C) No.1273 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.16114 of 2011 both disposed off on 05.04.2022 by separate orders. In the latter, a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the OSFC for OTS, if application is made not later than 02.05.2022 and that he could raise all contentions, which were directed to be considered in the light of extant OTS Scheme.

2.3. In the meanwhile, the possession of all assets of the petitioner- company including plant & machinery were taken over by the OSFC under Section 29 of 1951 Act, way back in 1996. Petitioner had a grievance at a later point of time that there was a diminution of assets more particularly plant & machinery and therefore, he had requested for a joint verification exercise on the premise that after taking over, it was the bounden duty of OSFC to maintain watch & ward more particularly in the light of decision of Co-Ordinate Bench which had permitted petitioner to raise all factors for consideration in the application to be made. In fact, petitioner had made one dated 27.06.2022 as suggested in the said order in which at paragraph-1 he had specifically admitted the lapse on his part as to why the instalments accruing due were not paid.

2.4. It