MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONversusMIS. SUVARNA BOARD MILL AND ANR.

     \
A        THE MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                         ,..
                  MIS. SUVARNA BOARD MILL<; AND ANR.

                                 AUGUST 18, 1994

B                 (A.M. AHMADI AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.).

           State Financial Corporation Act-Section 29-Exercise of power
  . under-Requirement of natural justice-Non payment of loan-Notice under
    Section 29 calling upon respondent to repay dues failing which possession of
C its factory premises would be taken-Absence of a Jonna/ show cause notice
    before taking action under Section 2Hf'hether amounts to >iolation of prin-
    ciples of natural justice-Held, No.

            Respondent obtained "bridge loan" from the appellant. A sum or Rs.
     3 lakhs was disbursed Iayi~g down the repayment schedule. The respon-
D    dent did not repay as agreed upon. The appellant issued a notice con-
     templated by Section 29 or the State Financial Corporation Act calling
     upon the respondent to pay the dues failing which it was stated that the
     possession of the factory premises of the respondents shall be taken. On
     payment not being made possession was taken. A letter was issued th.ere-
E    after stating that if the respondent was interested in getting back posses-
     sion, it should clear the dues within 15 days. On failure to do so, the
     respondent was informed, the Corporation would be at liberty to dispose
     or the property.

           The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 or the Constitution
·F   stating that the appellant took over possession or the factory without·
     considering Its representation made pursuant to notice of the appellant.
     The High Court round fault with the action taken with the aid or Section
     29 or the Act because according to it, before doing so a show cause notice
     was required to be given as to why action under Section 29 should not be ·
G    taken to satisfy the requirement or natural justice. The notice was quashed
     and the appellant was directed to restore possession. This appeal was filed
     against the Impugned judgment or the High C'!urt.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

H         HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, the notice issued under Section 29
          --                           754
                                               '
    MAHARASlITRAFINANCIAL CORPN.v. SUVARNA BOARD [HANSAR!AJ.]755 .

  of th~ State Financial Corporation Act did call upon the r:espondent to A
• repay the dues by 21.01.92, failing which the respondent was put to notice
  that possession of its factory premises would be taken. This did meet the
  requirement of natural justice. No separate show cause notice was re·
  quired, as held by the High Court Section 29 action could not have
  therefore been set at naught because of absence of an independent show B
  cause notice. (757·A·B)                  ·             .                '

        S.L. Kapur v. Jagmolia11, AIR (1981) SC 136, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Chil Appeal No. -1196 of
  1994..
                                                                              c
       From the Judgment and Order dated 12.2.92 of the Bombay High·
  Court in W.P. No. 277 of 1992.    ·

       . Rajiv Dutta for the Appellant.

        S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents .                                 D

       . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           HANSARIA, J. Mis Suvama Board Mills, hereinafter, the respon·
    dent, approached the appellant seeking 'bridge loan' towards State Capital
    Incentive and for purchase of some machineries etc. A sum of Rs. 3 lakhs E
    was disbursed by the appellant some time in September 1990 laying down .
    the re-payment schedule. The respondent did not repay as agreed upon. A
    small amount of Rs. 11,588 was once paid and cheques given thereafter
    bounced. In December 1990 the appellant reminded the respondent to
    clear arrears, but to no effect. Reminders of April and May 1991 also bore F
    no fruit. In January 1992 the arrear on account of principal, interest and
    expenses became about Rs. 25 lakhs. The appellant, a State Financial
    Corporation, decided to invoke power conferred by section 29 of the State
    Financial Corporation Act and did so on 7.1.92 by issuing a notice con-
    templated by this section stating, inter alia, that the Corporation bas G
    became entitled because of the failure and neglect of the respondent to
    clear the dues, to recover the entire outstanding Joan amount. of about Rs.
    5 lakhs and called upon the respondent to pay the same by 21.1.92 failing .
· . which it was stated that the possession of the factory premises of the
    respondents shall be taken on 22.1.92. On payment not being made pos-
    session was taken· on 22nd January. A Jetter was issued thereafter on 29th H
      . -"""                                                        '
    756       .'          SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Juanuary stating that if the respondent was interested in getting back,
    possession, :it should clear the drnes as desired earlier within 15 days. On '
    failure to do so, the respondent was informed, the Corporation would be .
    at liberty to dispose of the property.

          2. The respondent approached the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay
B High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution making .
    grievance that the appellant took over possession of the factory without
    considering its representation made pursuant to notice of the appellant
    dated 7.1.92. The High Court found fault with the action taken with the aid
    of section 29, not on this ground, but because, according to it, before doing
C   so a show cause notice was required to be given as to why action under
    section 29 should not be taken to satisfy the requirement of natural justice.
    The same not having been done, in view of the High Court, notice of 7th
    January was quashed and the appellant was directed to restore possession.
    Hence this appeal by the Financial Corporation.
                                                                                     i
D                                                                                    '
          3. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel of the
    appellant that principles of natural justice were satisfied before taking
    action under section 29, assuming that it was necessary to· do so. Let it be ·
    seen whether it was so. It is well settled that natural justice cannot be
    placed in a straight jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary
E   from case 'to case and from one fact-situation to another. All that has to'
    be seen i;that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue befor~'
    one is put' on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not
    take care :or the lapse, because of which the action as made known is'
    contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will
F   depend o~ facts and cjrcumstances of the case.

           4. Let it be seen whether the respondent was sounded in advance
    that if it Would not dear the arrear within a fixed period, the hammer of
    section 29. would fall. This was abundantly done, according to us. Of cours~;
G   for this we shall h21ve to ignore what had been stated in letters of the
    Corporati.on issued in April and May 1991 requiring clearance of dues, as
    what natural justice requires is to give opportunity to represent against the
    proposed action., as stated in paragraph 16 of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan,
    AIR (1981) SC 136. The letters of April and May 1991 did not speak abo11t
    contemplated action with the aid of section 29. (The letter of December
H   1990 stands on the same footing, besides being too remote). But then, t~~
  MAHARASHTRA FINANCIAL CORPN. '"SUVARNA BOARD [HANSARIA,J.)757

section 29 notice did call upon the respondent to repay the dues by 21.1.92,    A
failing which the respondent was put to notice that possession of its factory
premises would be taken. This did meet the requirement of natural justice,
according to us. No separate show cause notice was requred, as held by
the High Court. Section 29 action could not have therefore been set at
naught because of absence of an independent show cause notice.
                                                                                B
       5. We may now deal with the grievnace of the respondent made
before the High Court. This was non-consideration of its representation
filed pursuant to section 29 notice. This representation is dated 20.1.92 and
it narrates the diffculties faced by the respondent in re-paying the loan as
agreed to and contains a proposal now the respondent would like to              C
liquidate the dues. A request is finally made to extend time till March 1992
and not to take the proposed action.

       6. The representation it is alleged was not at all attended to, not to
speak of the same receiving due consideration. We should have thought D
that the appellant being a public body should have acted fairly and should
have communicated its response to the representation. May be because of
the respondent being almost a chronnic defaulter and its earlier cheques
having even bounced, the assurances contained in its representation did
not carry weight. Even so, before taking recourse to the drastic action of
taking over possession, another assessment would have added credibility to E
its decision; it would have been better to do so.

       7. As the representation of the respondent was not shown to have
been considered by the appellant, we thought that we should ourselves
allow the respondent to make a reasOilable offer which _could be taken as F
a sort of giving post decisional hearing by us, which would in some cases
meet the call of natural justice. The case was adjourned for this purpose
to 2.8.94 after the hearing on other points was over on 27.7.94. The learned
counsel of the respondent submitted to us on 3.8.94 that the possession of
the factory should be handed over back to his client and out of the profit G
to be earned it would clear the dues. As to cash to be paid, about which
also we had asked to get instructions, we were informed that a sum of Rs.
50,000 alone could be paid because of the present bad financial position
of the respondent. We do not regard this stand as reasonable, as there is
no knowing if the unit would at all become profitable at the hand of the
respondent in view of how it had functioned earlier when it was being H
    758                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   operated by it. The offer to pay Rs. 50,000, as against more than 5 lakhs
    which had become due by January 1992, cannot also be regarded as
    reasonable.

         8. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the
    impugned judgment, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It would
B   be open to .the appellant to take such further action(s) in the matter as
    permitted by se:ction 29.

    A.G.                                                        Appeal allowed.