TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncial Corpn. (O.S.F.C.) and Industrial Promotion & Investment Corpn. Ltd. (IPICOL), Orissa, alleges deficient and inadequate rendering of financial assistance hired by the complainant for consideration and seeks a direc- tion to the opposite parties to sanction fully viable project, not to charge interest till the entire loan on the revival project is sanctioned and released, disburse the loan to the complainant to complete the project and also to pay damages of Rs. 1.15 crores. The assets of G.K. Straw Board Industries (P.) Ltd. at Manamunda, Phulbani were seized by O.S.F.C. under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the year 1987 (10-12-1987), with a right to sell/ lease for realisation of its dues. These were rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as applied against loan to M/s. G.K. Straw Board Industries (P.) Ltd. 4.Corporation will consider sanctioning additional loan as may be required for completion and implementation of the project on usual terms and conditions. 5.The balance amount will be repaid as per Repayment schedule, to be decided and drawn-up jointly after sanction of additional loan in your favour for both the loans. 6.Besides mortgage and hypothecation of the industrial assets to be sold, you and your husband will give personal guarantee to the Corporation as to repayment of loan and payment of interest. As the immediate payment of Rs. 1,00,000 has already been made by you, you are requested to execute necessary documents in compliance to above immediately....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the acceptance of the said offer regarding the purchase of said unit it came to limelight that the first opposite party had concealed material facts. The opposite parties guided by their sole desper-ate expediency to save their neck from the CBI and other Investigative Agencies, who were investigating serious irregularities of the opposite parties which caused losses of around Rs. 14-15 lakhs to the State of Orissa and ruined the lives of previous promoters, deliberately handed over the same partly completed industrial project to the complainant for completion and implementation as a 'revival package' at their full capital costs of Rs. 22 lakhs by giving patently false assurance and commitment and resorting to massive concealments, misrepre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agree and the complainant did submit a proposal for implementing the project of duplex board which was sanctioned for implementing at a cost worked out to Rs. 129.59 lakhs, (v)that the complete project profile for duplex board unit was submit- ted by the complainant for sanction but opposite parties took eight long months to finally sanction the project profile of the complainant, (vi)that the Opposite Party No. 1 defaulted are failed to register the assets agreed to be sold to the complainant and until the assets were registered no loan could be disbursed to the complainant despite the fact that it was lying sanctioned since March 1989 and thus the complainant was not allowed to work, (vii)that the opposite parties were guilty of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs is yet to be released which is being illegally withheld causing loss to the com-plainant, and (xiii)that the oposite parties have acted most highhandedly and have been victimising the complainant for all the faults, shortcomings and misrepresentation on their part. The complainant prayed that: "(a) The respondents be directed to sanction the fully viable project in favour of the Petitioner. (b) The resondents be further directed not to charge interest from the petitioner till the entire loan on the revised project is sanctioned and released as the delay has occurred only on account of the respondents as shown by the petitioner by the documents produced on record. (c) The respondents be directed to disburse further loan to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in it till its completion have attempted to proceed with the project in an arbitrary manner contrary to without appropriate technical advice, more particu- larly that of their consultants and also attempted to change the scope of the project from time to time by way of enhancement of the capacity. It is pleaded that having invited its present predicament, the complainant is now trying to turn around and blame the financial institutions by way of the present petition for its own latches and unprofessional handling of the project. 6. Having given our utmost thought to the respective contentions of the parties as set out in their pleadings, we are of the opinion that this is not a suitable case for adjudication by this Commission in the tim....