The question of whether the delay in filing a petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 should be condoned is a question of fact that must be proven by leading cogent and clinching evidence.

The captioned petition is filed questioning the order

passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.4 in condoning the

delay of 109 days caused in filing the petition under

Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act,

1951 (for short “the Act”). The said order is under

challenge.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would

vehemently argue and contend before this Court that

Misc.No.136/2002 was dismissed for non-prosecution on

17.02.2009 and respondent-corporation failed to let in

evidence despite numerous opportunities were given to it.

3

3.

Leaned counsel appearing for petitioner would

strenuously argue and contend before this Court that the

very initiation of recovery proceedings by filing the

present petition virtually amounts to abuse of process. He

would

contend

that

respondent

No.1

accepted

Rs.29,00,000/- towards one time settlement and further

directed the present petitioner to deposit balance amount

of Rs.5,50,000/- which in fact was complied by the

petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner before

this Court is that respondent No.1-corporation having

offered one time settlement scheme and in compliance of

the offer made by respondent No.1-Corporation, the

petitioner has paid the entire amount as demanded under

one time settlement scheme. On these grounds, he would

submit before this Court that the present petition filed by

respondent No.1-Corporaiton having extended one time

settlement scheme amounts to abuse of process and

therefore, request this Court to set aside the order

4

passed by the Court below on I.A.No.4 and consequently

dismiss the petition on the ground that respondent-

corporation cannot lay further claim having received a

sum of Rs.34,50,000/- under one time settlement

scheme.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and

learned

counsel

appearing

for

respondent-

corporation. Perused the order under challenge.

5.

The Court below having regard to the fact that

the corporation is seeking a recovery of Rs.2,44,43,585/-

by adopting a liberal approach has condoned the delay of

109 days and has registered petition under Section

31(1)(aa) of the Act.

6.

On perusal of the records I would find that

there is monetary claim against the present petitioner.

The question as to whether respondent No.1-corporation

extended one time settlement scheme to the petitioner

5

and whether it was availed and the offer made by the

corporation was complied and the amount was duly

deposited in terms of one time settlement scheme are all

disputed questions of facts and the same are to be

summarily proved by leading cogent and clinching

evidence. This Court cannot usurp the powers of court

below which is vested with power to hold an enquiry

under section 31(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, without

expressing any opinion on merits of the case, keeping all

contentions open, the Court below is directed to

expeditiously decide the dispute in accordance with law

after affording opportunities to both the parties.

7.

With this observation, the revision petition

stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

YAN