1. The tone of this judgment can be set by quoting what Richard Brinsley Sheridan, an Irish dramatist of 18th 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 is the case of petitioner that out of Rs.32,27,500/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only as sanctioned on two occasions, i.e., one in 1984 and other in 1990, a sum of Rs.54,81,881.51 (Rupees Fifty Four Crore Eighty One Lakh Eight Hundred Eighty One & Fifty One Paise) only was repaid, which was about 170% more than the original loans sanctioned sans interest that had accrued due thereon. The petitioner-company was referred to BIFR as a sick unit. Because of this, petitioner’s OTS proposal floated in 2009 was not considered resulting into filing of aforesaid WPs. The OSFC accepted the OTS offer in an outstanding sum of Rs.194.64 lakh in terms of 2011 Scheme, vide letter dated 24.08.2013. In furtherance thereof, he has deposited a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) only vide SBI Demand Draft dated 24.03.2023, undertaking to pay simple interest @ 8% per annum reckoned from 23.09.2013. Strangely this proposal was made on 24.03.2023, i.e., about ten years after the acceptance of OTS proposal.

                   2.5. Since petitioner did not avail the benefit of sanctioning of OTS, the secured assets were put to public auction on 05.07.2025 and opposite party No.4, being the highest bidder, become the victorious party had paid Rs.7,89,86,500/- (Rupees Seven Crore Eighty Nine Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Five Hundred) only out of the bid amount of Rs.12,12,30,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Twelve Lakh Thirty Thousand) only. Of course, he came to be impleaded as opposite party No.4 at a later stage and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide interim order dated 04.07.2025, restrained confirmation of auction. In view of this interim order, the auction buyer was having second thoughts as to whether he should proceed with the finalization of auction. In the meanwhile, petitioner’s representation dated 28.12.2023 seeking reduction of OTS amount and waiver of interest also came to be rejected vide letter dated 24.01.2024. Then followed the impugned letter dated 17.06.2025 whereunder petitioner was directed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.6,46,25,806/- failing which property would be put to auction. Petitioner failed and accordingly the public auction happened. All this is put in challenge by the petitioner.

3. Since common questions of law & facts are involved, these matters that were clubbed, at the instance of parties, were taken up for hearing this day together. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner essential urged the following points for consideration:

                   3.1. Petitioner is a bona fide borrower; he has repaid more amount than the principal amounts lent, of course interest part keeping at a bay; because of seizure of plant & machinery in 1996, he has been put to a manifest hardship & injustice at the hands of OSFC officials;

                   3.2. Petitioner is ready and willing to pay the OTS amount as settled in 2013 along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum and this offer could not have been rejected by the OSFC mindlessly; the auction buyer himself is withdrawing from the auction and therefore, the auction should be set at naught and another opportunity should be given for settling the OTS amount as per 2009 Scheme vis-à-vis 2011 Scheme.

                   3.3. The OSFC, in the fitness of things, was bound to favour request of the petitioner for waiver of interest and value deficit, inasmuch as the possession of plant & machinery was taken over way back in 1996 that virtually drove the petitioner to BIFR proceedings, which was otherwise avoidable. In any circumstance, interference of this Court is eminently warranted. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the OSFC, with equal vehemence, opposes the petitions contending that the OSFC manages public money in a normative way; petitioner is a chronic defaulter and therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary remedy at the hands of Constitutional Courts. Though OTS was approved/accepted in 2013, the benefit thereof has not been taken by the unscrupulous borrower who is coming in the way of recovery of public money, lent more than four decades ago; in OTS matters, OSFC follows the statutory guidelines and therefore, a Writ Court cannot grant indulgence. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petitions.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, for the following reasons:

                   4.1. OSFC is essentially a financial institution established under the provisions of 1951 Act. Its affairs & businesses are regulated by statutory provisions, promulgated rules & circulars. The loan in question is huge, i.e., in crores of rupees because of accumulated interest over more than four decades. The first contention that petitioner is a scrupulous borrower is untrue, if not false. The elements of scrupulousness are militantly lacking. The first loan was sanctioned in 1984 and the second in 1988. For some period, the debt was serviced, is true. However, thereafter admittedly the loan instalments were not paid resulting into huge arrears. Eventually, the plant & machinery were taken over by the OSFC way back in 1996 under section 29 of the 1951 Act. The allegation that value of plant & machinery has been diminished because of non-maintenance and avoidable dysfunction has not been substantiated. The question of giving benefit of imaginary diminution of value therefore would not arise. Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier in two writ petitions, one in 2008 and another in 2011. The only direction given was to consider his representation, which would contain ‘all factors’. The said decision did not set aside OTS settlement nor gave any concession as sought by the petitioner by way of waiver of interest and other incidental charges. Petitioner failed to avail the benefit of OTS facility granted by the OSFC way back in 2013 despite a slew of intimations. Despite vociferous submissions, what right the petitioner had to seek waiver of interest or reduction of OTS amount, remains as a mystery. A Writ Court operates on the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium. In the absence of a justiciable right being demonstrated, no relief can be granted on the ground of mercy merely because the borrower was in financial difficulty.

                   4.2. The next contention that the petitioner suffered diminution of value of his plant & machinery because of failure attributable to the OSFC that had taken possession in 1996, has not been substantiated either in his representation to the lending agency or before us by producing some evidentiary material. Such a contention appears to have been taken or at least could be taken in the earlier round of litigation that did not culminate in any positive order of the kind, his claim merited. No fault can be laid at the threshold of OSFC, which has exercised the statutory power under section 29 of 1951 Act in taking over the plant & machinery. Challenge to that order is not put before us directly & substantially. Even otherwise, what was done three decades ago cannot be raised now in these petitions. Digging the grave would not reward. It was not the case of petitioner before BIFR that the company suffered losses on account of plant & machinery being taken over by the OSFC. Writ Courts cannot examine contentions of the kind even otherwise.

                   4.3. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that auction itself is liable to be voided is bit difficult to countenance. Public auction of security property is a sanctioned mode of recovery under the provisions of 1951 Act. Contracting of debts is not in dispute; debts grow because of periodical accrual of interest, more particularly at commercial rates cannot be disputed. It is the duty of debtor to find the creditor and hand the debt back with the agreed rate of interest, is a grund norm that operates in any civilized society vide Soniram Jetmull v. Tata & Co. Ltd; AIR 1927 PC 112. The said principle needs to be scrupulously observed specially when public money is borrowed. Any argument to the contrary would spurn at law, at reason & at justice. Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for debt servicing; he was offered the benefit of OTS on his own request.

                   4.4. The Apex Court, in The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. V. Meenal Agarwal, (2022) 2 SCC 805, has observed as under:

                   "…it may happen that a person would borrow a huge amount, for example Rs. 100 crores. After availing the loan, he may deliberately not pay any amount towards installments, though able to make the payment. He would wait for the OTS Scheme and then pray for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme under which, always a lesser amount than the amount due and payable under the loan account will have to be paid. This, despite there being all possibility for recovery of the entire loan amount which can be realised by selling the mortgaged/secured properties. If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower, who, despite the fact that he is able to make the payment and the fact that the bank is able to recover the entire loan amount even by selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either from the borrower and/or guarantor….Ultimately, such a decision should be left to the commercial wisdom of the bank whose amount is involved and it is always to be presumed that the financial institution/bank shall take a prudent decision whether to grant the benefit or not under the OTS Scheme, having regard to the public interest involved..."

The above observation although having been made in the context of Law of Banking i.e. in a case arising under the SARFAESI Act the same assumes relevance to the case at hand also. Petitioner started narrating cock & bull story for not availing the benefit of OTS that was granted to him in 2013. He appears to be hell bent upon defeating the loan recovery proceedings, to the prejudice of public interest. His words, acts & deeds do not inspire confidence in the mind of Court, to grant equitable remedy. Panel Counsel for the OSFC is more than justified in telling us that an unscrupulous borrower like the petitioner should not be shown any mercy. Courts cannot place premium on unconscionable acts of borrower.

                   4.5. As already observed, the first sanctioning of loan was in 1984, second being 1988. OTS facility was given in 2013 in terms of 2009 Scheme; it was on the basis of petitioner’s offer as per the extant policy. For more than ten years, he did not do anything, worth mentioning. Petitioner-company was put in the list of sick units, is not because of any culpability attributable to the lender. Loan & repayment are a matter of simple arithmetic. The debts have grown because of failure on the part of debtor to service the same, despite concessions being given. Petitioner has repaid more than what the principal debts are, does not take his case any further, the doctrine of damdupat not being invocable. What a debtor pays back is not a favour to the lender. In good old days, it was said that beg, borrow or steal for repaying the outstanding debts. That the petitioner has not done. Inevitably, OSFC had to take possession of plant & machinery; thereafter it has to put to secured assets for public auction that was held in July, 2025; highest bidder has already credited a huge sum of Rs.7,89,86,500/-, already out of Rs.12,12,30,000. He is ready and willing to remit the remainder. Because of interim order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, the matter came to a standstill. It cannot go on and on that way. Now a days Courts are witnessing several cases of SFC loan recovery wherein, unscrupulous borrowers are adopting nefarious modus operandi to stall the recovery, with come what may, attitude. Such an attitude needs to be deprecated. Otherwise, public money will be unethically swallowed and eventually it is the genuine borrowers who would suffer. A loud message should go to the unscrupulous borrowers that Courts will not come to their rescue. This is a fit case for dismissal with exemplary costs.

In the above circumstances, these petitions being devoid of merits and petitioner engaging himself in abuse of process of law, they are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are with a cost collectively quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to be paid to OSFC within thirty (30) days failing which delay would carry additional sum of Rs.250/- per day.