Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Corporation's takeover and sale of the industrial unit under the State Financial Corporations Act were valid when the entire loan was not disbursed and the borrower was not given an opportunity before acceptance of a low tender; (ii) whether, in exercising power under section 29 of the Act, the Corporation was bound to act fairly, reasonably and in conformity with natural justice, and to prefer public auction or a transparent sale procedure.
Issue (i): whether the Corporation's takeover and sale of the industrial unit under the State Financial Corporations Act were valid when the entire loan was not disbursed and the borrower was not given an opportunity before acceptance of a low tender.
Analysis: The power under section 29 is wide, but it is not unfettered. The statutory scheme, read with section 24, requires the Corporation to act on business principles and in a manner consistent with fairness and public interest. Where the borrower had repeatedly sought release of an open plot, offered substantial payment, and the Corporation still proceeded to accept a comparatively low tender on deferred terms without notice or opportunity to the borrower, the action lacked fairness and reasonableness. The failure to disburse the full loan and the absence of a genuine attempt to accommodate the unit's financial difficulties were material circumstances showing that the sale did not proceed on a prudent or bona fide basis.
Conclusion: The takeover and sale were invalid and the sale was liable to be set aside.
Issue (ii): whether, in exercising power under section 29 of the Act, the Corporation was bound to act fairly, reasonably and in conformity with natural justice, and to prefer public auction or a transparent sale procedure.
Analysis: The Corporation was treated as an instrumentality of the State and, upon taking possession of the debtor's property, as standing in the position of a trustee. Its conduct was therefore required to satisfy the standards of justness, fairness, reasonableness and good faith. The Court held that default alone does not justify taking possession or selling the property unless such steps are imperative. Public auction was stated to be the normal and preferred mode for sale, while private negotiation could be resorted to only in exceptional cases with adequate publicity and disclosure. The borrower should ordinarily be informed of valuation and sale terms, and given an opportunity to match the offer or bring higher bidders.
Conclusion: The Corporation was bound to follow a fair, transparent and reasonable procedure, and the sale by private negotiation on the facts was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the sale was quashed, possession was directed to be resumed by the Corporation, and the borrower was given an opportunity to redeem the hypotheca or, failing that, to have the property dealt with through open auction with wide publicity.
Ratio Decidendi: Power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act must be exercised consistently with fairness, reasonableness, natural justice and the duty to secure the best price, ordinarily by public auction or an equally transparent process.