Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner, M/s. Ranchi Refractories is a firm having its work and office at Ancillary Industrial Area, Tupudana, Hatia, Ranchi. The main respondent is Bihar State Financial Corporation. The other respondents are Union of India, State Bank of India nad the officers of Respondent No. 1. 2. This application was filed on 21.3.1986. By order dated 11.4.86, this Court directed for issuance of notice upon the respondents and by interim order, the auction pursuant to notice dated 17.3.1986 (Annexure-3) was stayed on the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50, 000.00 with the branch of the Corporation at Ranchi. The said order subsequently became inoperative, in view of order dated 20.8.1986 by which the said application was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for modification of the aforesaid order. this Court directed the siad matter to be placed again for necessary orders. The following order was passed on 4.11.1986 by a Bench of this Court:- - 13. 4.11.1986: Heard learned Counsel for the parties with regard to stay matter. There is dispute with regard to the total amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation. Without going on that question, at this stage, we direct that if the petitioner deposits with the Corporation a sum of Rs. 1, 50, 000.00 (one lac fifty thousand), either in lump or in instalments, by 15th February, 1987, the Corporation shall not take any action in pursuance of Annexure-3. Let the case be listed on 16th February, 1987, for further orders on the stay matter. It is made clear that in case of default in paying the amount the petitioner has waived their right of notice under Sec. 29 of the Bihar State Finance, Corporation Act. 3. The petitioner filed an application for extending the date of depositing Rs. 1, 00, 000.00 as directed by order dated 8.4.1987. this Court refused to extend time for deposit. The case was listed for hearing on 26.7.1991 before a learned Single Judge who passed the following order:- - It is an admitted case that the petitioner was sanctioned a lone of Rs. 8.22 lakhs by the Corporation out of which he received Rs. 7.10 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he has paid Rs. 8 lakhs and odd and is liable to pay the interest only. This is disputed on behalf of the Corporation. 8.22 lakhs by the Corporation out of which he received Rs. 7.10 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he has paid Rs. 8 lakhs and odd and is liable to pay the interest only. This is disputed on behalf of the Corporation. It is ordered that the petitioner shall file a statement of accounts of the total amount paid to the Corporation by the petitioner and shall also state the interest that the petitioner is liable to pay. The Corporation is directed to file a statement of accounts showing break up of the amount received from the petitioner and the amount that is outstanding. They must state how they have arrived at the figures which the Corporation claims to be outstanding. The statements to be filed by the petitioner and the corporation must be supported by affidavits. The petitioner shall file its affidavit within one week and the Corporation will file it within one week thereafter. Let this case be listed after two weeks. 4. It appears from order dated 13.8.1991 that according to the Corporation, the petitioner was at that stage liable to pay Rs. 18 lakhs whereas according to the petitioner only Rs. 9, 22, 729.04 ps. was payable to the Corporation by way of interest (as per Annexure 14 to the petition dated 2.8.1991). Till then no counter-affidavit had been filed by the Corporation, and as such the case was adjourned to enable the Corporation to file its counter-affidavit and for the petitioner to scrutinise the statements of accounts to be filed by the Corporation. 5. Thereafter, the case was listed for hearing before me on 6.10.1994. The Corporation also filed its counter-affidavit. According to the Corporation in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner was sanctioned Rs. 8.22 lakhs, out of which a sum of Rs. 7.10 lakhs was disbursed to the petitioner and the balance amount lapsed. Against the disbursed amount, die petitioner has only paid Rs. 544.32p. It was denied that the petitioner had paid Rs. 5 lakhs up to 1984 towards the principal amount. It is stated that till 31st of August, 1986, dues were Rs. 11, 07, 953.23 ps. To this a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 25.10.1986. In the rejoinder it has been stated that till April, 1979, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 95, 000.00 only as against the interest against the loan. It is stated that till 31st of August, 1986, dues were Rs. 11, 07, 953.23 ps. To this a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 25.10.1986. In the rejoinder it has been stated that till April, 1979, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 95, 000.00 only as against the interest against the loan. The petitioner, however, paid Rs. 5, 80, 000.00 approximately inclusive of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 95, 000.00 as interest. The repayment of the loan according to the brochures of respondents itself on initial period of 3 years as meratorium was liable to be given to the petitioner and according to schedule the repayment ought to have been started only of the expiry of 3 years from the date of April, 1979 i.e. April, 1981. The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount paid by the petitioner upto March 1981 could not have been adjusted towards the interest only. The said payment ought to have been adjusted towards the principal. 6. The petitioner on 8.2.1991 filed an application for amendment of the writ application. No order on the amendment application was passed so far. Indeed the amendment changes the whole complexion of the case. Some new facts have been introduced which have not been referred to in the original writ petition. The following facts may be noticed from the amendment application:- - 1. The petitioner submitted that it is his specific case that although a sum of Rs. 8,22,000.00 was sanctioned by the respondents on 21.1.1977, but only a sum of Rs. 7,10,000.00 was released to the petitioner and that too within the period from May, 1977 to April, 1979. 2. In terms of agreement entered into by any between the petitioner and the respondents, the loan was covered under the scheme of re-finance by the Industrial Development Bank of India and it was provided that the rate of interest charged by the Corporation shall not exceed the limit of interest prescribed by the Industrial Development Bank of India. 3. The petitioner paid Rs. 5,80,000.00 upto 1984 and thereafter Rs. 2,00,000.00 in terms of the order passed by this Hon ble Court, and a further sum of Rs. 50,000.00 in 198?. In this way, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 8,30,000.00 as against the total loan of Rs. 7,10,000- 4. 3. The petitioner paid Rs. 5,80,000.00 upto 1984 and thereafter Rs. 2,00,000.00 in terms of the order passed by this Hon ble Court, and a further sum of Rs. 50,000.00 in 198?. In this way, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 8,30,000.00 as against the total loan of Rs. 7,10,000- 4. On account of the loan payment of the entire sanction amount by the respondent-Board within the time stipulated and on account of gross negligence of the part of the respondent, to provide refinance facility from the Industrial Development Bank, the petitioner could not flourish its business rather the petitioners unit continuously incurred cash loss and continuously failed to pay the withdrawal instalment of the interest and became a sick unit. 5. The petitioner had approached Respondent No. 1 Board and also Respondent No.5-State Bank of India for taking up the unit of the petitioner which is a S.S.I, unit under the rehabilitation programme. However, Respondent No.5-Bank by its letter dated 19.9.1987 informed the petitioner that the rehabilitation programme of the unit is in the final stage and the same will be done in the event Respondent-Board take up the matter on a priority basis. 6. That the Branch Manager of Respondent No.5 Bank also wrote a letter dated 19.9.1987 to the Respondent-Corporation informing that the Bank was decided to take up the petitioners unit for Nursing Programme. The Respondent-Corporation was requested to withdraw the guarantee claim made by it to M/s. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to enable the Bank to take up the unit under the Nursing Programme. (Annexure-8). 7. The Bank by its letter dated 19.9.1987 informed the petitioner about the steps taken by the Bank for the re-habilitation of the Unit of the petitioner and directed it to submit all the sanction papers to enable the Bank to proceed further, In compliance of the said letter, the petitioner submitted all the papers and documents to Respondent No, 5, Bank (Annexure-9). 8. Respondent No.1, Corporation took up petitioners Unit for re-habilitation Scheme and by its letter dated 7.6.1988 requested the Respondent No.5 Bank to sent its duties regarding the sanction of working capital assistance to the Sick Unit of the petitioner (Annexure-10), the petitioner submitted all the papers and documents together with application of re-habilitation of the Scheme Unit both the Respondent No.1 Corporation and the Bank. Ultimately the Corporation by its letter No. 2541 dated 18.1.1989 Monned the petitioner about its decision to take up the Units under the fltorsing Programme provided the promoter of the Unit make substantial payment towards the interest over due (Annexure-11). The petition then deposited a sum of Rs. 50, 000.00 being a substantial amount toward the payment of interest over due. Despite payment of substantial amount by the petitioner the Corporation revoked decision for the Rehabilitation of the Unit on the ground that the same was rejected by the Screening Committee of the Corporation. The said rejection was communicated to .the petitioner by its letter dated 16.11.1989 (Annexure-12). 7. The petitioner now seeks to challenge Annexure-12 on the ground that the decision is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory because the respondent completely failed to follow the rules, regulations and guide-lines issued by the Reserve Bank of India with regard to Sick Small Scale Industrial Units. The Reserve Bank of India Circular and Guide-lines provides inter alia that in the event a Unit declared as a Sick Unit., the Panel rate of interest and the interest to the term loan, cash credit should be segregated from the total liability. Annexure-2 to the said guide-lines further give relief to the Sick Unit with regard to payment of loan and interest. The petitioner in Paragraph 21 of the amendment application given a list of Units, who have been given benefits of Rehabilitation Scheme. No rejoinder of the amendment petition was filed by the Corporation. The amendment application was not pressed as it was filed in 1991. 8. Mr. Eqbal filed written submission on behalf of the petitioner to re-interated the salient facts highlighted in the amendment application. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay to the Corporation more-than Rs. 901895.00 towards principal and interest. According to Mr. Eqbal, the statement of account in Annexure-A is inflicted one and in order to demonstrate the error in the statement of account. Following facts have been stated as below: (i) Besides charging half yearly interest at a exorbitant rate the Respondent-Corporation also regularly made entry of certain amount by way of inspection charge, although the petitioner-Unit was never inspected. Eqbal, the statement of account in Annexure-A is inflicted one and in order to demonstrate the error in the statement of account. Following facts have been stated as below: (i) Besides charging half yearly interest at a exorbitant rate the Respondent-Corporation also regularly made entry of certain amount by way of inspection charge, although the petitioner-Unit was never inspected. (ii) There are also entries of certain amount by way of court expenses, legal expenses, legal charges, photo copies charges, and after making these entries in the statement of account time to time, the interest on those amounts were also continuously charged by way compounding interest. 9. Mr. Eqbal submits that the Corporation got the loan account and credit guarantee under the deposit/Insurance Credit Guarantee Scheme to the effect in payment lone amount out standing amount became non-recoverable the same shall be indemnified as guarantee corporation of India to the Corporation. It is submitted from the statement account filed by the Corporation from the beginning the yearly premium was paid by the Corporation after dehabilitating the account of the petitioner Unit right from the beginning early premium more than Rs. 4,000 was debited to the account of the petitioner and really compound interest have been charged under the said amount also. It is submitted that the Credit Guarantee Corporation considered the genuiness of the claim of the Respondent-Corporation and idemnified it by making payment of Rs. 2,31,106.70 as it is evident from letter No. 1430 dated 25.9.1987 of Respondent-Corporation. It was also submitted that after receipt of amount of Credit Guarantee Corporation, the Corporation is not entitled to claim further amount from the petitioner. This submission, the petitioner has challenged the case of the respondents giving benefit of rehabilitation scheme. 10. Mr. Eqbal, submits that the petitioner is entitled for the following reliefs: (i) In view of the fact that out of total loan of Rs. 7.10 lacs, the petitioner already paid Rs. 5,80,200 before 1987 and till the year 1987 total amount paid by the petitioner to the Corporation is Rs. 8.30 lacs which is much more the amount which was disbursed to the petitioner. In the year 1987, therefore, the only amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation by way o interest was about 2 lacks and odd, which is evident from -the fact that a sum of Rs. 8.30 lacs which is much more the amount which was disbursed to the petitioner. In the year 1987, therefore, the only amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation by way o interest was about 2 lacks and odd, which is evident from -the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,31,106.79 p, was received by the Corporation from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India under the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Scheme After the receipt of the aforesaid amount by the Corporation from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, the Respondent-Corporation is not entitled to recover any further amount from the petitioner. Since the petitioners company has paid more than Rs. 2 lacs and odd to the Corporation, the Corporation is not entitled for further amount. In any event, the petitioner is liable to pay not more than Rs. 5,707,88 to the corporation. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of rehabilitation Scheme. 11. Written notes has also been submitted by the Corporation mentioning the following facts:- - (i) Rs. 8.2 lacs was sanctioned to the petitioner by the Board of Director of respondent on 31st January, 1977 out of which Rs. 7.10 lacs disbursed and balance amount of Rs. 1.12 lacs was lapsed. The petitioner could not adhere to payment as he become a defaulter, the petitioner itself is guilty of latches. (ii) Action of the respondents are not illegal under Sec. 29 of the State Financial Act, 1951. (iii) The petitioner has not paid substantial amount- towards others due when the matter was referred to the screening Committee. The screening Committee observed as follows: From the perusal of the file it appears that concerned had not filed any regular rehabilitation application to the Corporation nor any proposal in this regard was received from the Ranchi Branch Office along with views of B.M. Branch Office. 12. The petitioner had not filed any application before the Screening Committee but the Corporation itself sent the matter before screening Committee. The Screening Committee considered all aspect of the Unit and rejected the case of the petitioner under Nurshing Rehabilitation Programme. 13. The petitioner has failed to make payment according to the terms agreed upon by him. The respondents are charging interest as per terms of the Loan sanctioned and agreed by the party as per terms and conditions in the "Mortage deed". 14. 13. The petitioner has failed to make payment according to the terms agreed upon by him. The respondents are charging interest as per terms of the Loan sanctioned and agreed by the party as per terms and conditions in the "Mortage deed". 14. The total dues towards principal amount, interest and other charges are as follows:- - Principal Rs. 7, 09, 455.68 Interest Rs. 21, 66, 475.96 Pendenterest Rs. 2, 41, 825.80 Interest Tax Rs. 34, 347.88 Overcharges Rs. 72, 782.81 ____________ Total: Rs. 32, 24, 888.13 15 After taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner had made default in payment of the instalments of principal and also interest and other charges, the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 19.2.86 had decided to sell and invoke the guarantee of the promoters and take steps in accordance with the Secs. 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1981. The Loan was given in the year 1977 and the last date of repayment was 1.12.1985, but the petitioner had made default in payment of principal and interest and other charges. The dues as on 28.2.1995 comes to Rs. 32, 24, 888.13. 16. The petitioner, after the argument was concluded, has filed written argument giving the background of the case and subsequent development taking place during the pendency of the case. It is submitted in para 4 of synopsis of note of argument that certain facts and action of the respondent-corporation are not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the application. Therefore, the same could not be incorporated in the writ petition. The subsequent facts have been incorporated in the amendment petition which has already been referred to the earlier part of this order Mr. Eqbal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made further submission emphasizing the following facts:- - i) In terms of the agreement entered into by and between the petitioenr and the respondent, the loan was covered under the scheme of Re-finance by the Industrial Development Bank of India and it was directed that the rate of interest charged by the Corporation shall not exceed the limits of interest prescribed by the Industrial Development Bank. ii) The arbitraty and malafide action of the respondent-corporation would appear from the fact that although the petitioner was entitled for refinance from the Industrial Development Bank, the respondents have not taken any positive steps towards reliance of the petitioner-Unit and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of interest at the rate mentioned in the agreement. iii) The petitioner prior to the filing of the writ application approached the respondent-corporation and the Bank for taking of the Unit of the petitioner under the rehabilitation programme. Accordingly, the respondent No.5 Bank by its letter dated 19.9.1987 informed the petitioner that the Rehabilitation programme of the Unit was in the final stage and the same would be done in die event, the respondent-Board took up the matter on priority basis. A copy of the said letter dated 19.9.1987 was annexed with the amendment application as Anenxure-7. The Branch Manager of the Bank also wrote a letter dated 19.9.1987 to the Respondent-Corporation informing that the Bank decided to take up the petitioner Unit under Nursing Programme. By the said letter, the respondent-Corporation was requested to withdraw the guarantee claim made by it to M/s. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Insurance to the Bank to take up the petitioner Unit under Narsing Programme. A copy of the said letter was annexed as Annexure-8 to the said . Amendment application. iv) The petitioner submitted all the papers and documents together with application for rehabilitation of the sick unit of the petitioner. The respondents agreed to take up unit of the petitioner under the Narsing Programme and accordingly the Respondent No. 1. Corporation, by its letter dated 18.1.1989 informed the petitioner about it decision to take up the Unit under the Narsing Programme provided the petitioner make substantial payment towards the interest over due. A copy of said letter dated 18.1.1989 was annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ application. v) The petitioner say and submits that on receipt of the letter dated 18.1.1989 the petitioner immediately deposited a substantial amount of Rs. 50, 000.00 towards the payment of interest over due. Despite the payment of the substantial amount which was the only condition for rehabilitation of the petitioner Unit, the respondent Corporation illegally, and arbitrary rejected its decision for the rehabilitation of the Unit on the ground that the same was rejected by the Screening Committee. 50, 000.00 towards the payment of interest over due. Despite the payment of the substantial amount which was the only condition for rehabilitation of the petitioner Unit, the respondent Corporation illegally, and arbitrary rejected its decision for the rehabilitation of the Unit on the ground that the same was rejected by the Screening Committee. The said so called illegal order was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 16.11.1989, which was annexed as with the Amendment application as Annexure-12. vi) That the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Hon ble Court by amendment application the Reserve Bank of India Circulars and the guidelines providing inter alia that in the event of a Unit declared as a sinck unit, the penal rate of interest should be waived and all the unpaid interest on the term loan and the cash credit should be segregated from the total liability. vii) The petitioner further brought the fact by amendment that the Respondent-Corporation discriminated the petitioner inasmuch as the said Corporation took up other Units names therein under the Rehabilitation Programme and gave all the benefits. 17. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 26.7.1991 the petitioner filed a statement of account alongwith a petition giving the detail of the amount paid to the Corporation and the amount allegedly due. As per the account submitted by the petitioner, it was stated that even if the petitioner is held liable for payment of interest, the balance amount allegedly payable by the petitioner cannot and shall not be made than Rs. 801895.00 . It is worth to mention here that the aforementioned statement of account was furnished by the petitioner on the bonafide belief that the respondent-Corporation was not compensated under the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Scheme by the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. 18. The Respondent-Corporation also filed the statement of account wherein the respondent-Corporation illegally and arbitrary shown an exorbitant outstanding due lying against the petitioner. The said statement of account is marked as Annexure-A to the said reply of the Respondent-Corporation. The illegal, incorrect and erroneous entry in the said statement of account will appear from the following facts :- - i) Besides charging half yearly interest at a exorbitant rate the Respondent-Corporation also regularly made entry of certain amount by way of inspection charge, although the petitioner-Unit was never inspected. The illegal, incorrect and erroneous entry in the said statement of account will appear from the following facts :- - i) Besides charging half yearly interest at a exorbitant rate the Respondent-Corporation also regularly made entry of certain amount by way of inspection charge, although the petitioner-Unit was never inspected. ii) There are also entries of certain amount by way of court expenses, legal expenses, legal charges, photo copies charges, and after making those entries in the statement of account time to time, the interest on those amounts were also continuously charged by way compounding interest. 19. The Respondent-Corporation got the loan amount secured under the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India under the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Scheme to the effect that in the event any part of the loan amount/outstanding amount became non recoverable the same shall be indemnified by the credit Guarantee Corporation of India to the Corporation. It will appear from the statement of account filed by the Corporation that since the beginning, the C.G.C. premium was paid by the Corporation after debiting the account of the petitioner-Unit. Right from the beginning the yearly premium more than Rs. 4,000.00 was debited in the account of the petitioner and as usually the compound interest have been charged on the said amount also. The acting on the part of the Respondent-Corporation in charging compound interest on the premium that was paid from the account of the petitioner was highly, arbitrary, illegal and malafide. 20. According to the Corporation, the outstanding "amount became non recoverable, the Corporation made a claim with the Credit Guarantee Corporation for payment of the loss which the Corporation sustained due to non recovery of the actual dues from the petitioner. It is submitted that the Credit Guarantee Corporation considered the genuineness of the claim of the Respondent-Corporation and indemnified it by making payment of Rs. 2, 31, 106.70 p. which is evident from the letter No. 1430 dated 25.9.1987 of the Respondent-Corporation (Hq). By the said letter the Headquarter directed the Branch Manager of the Corporation to up to date the record. 21. According to respondent-Corporation itself in 1987 the balance amount recoverable from the petitioner was Rs. 2, 31, 106.70 p, which was paid by the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation as against the premium paid by the petitioner. By the said letter the Headquarter directed the Branch Manager of the Corporation to up to date the record. 21. According to respondent-Corporation itself in 1987 the balance amount recoverable from the petitioner was Rs. 2, 31, 106.70 p, which was paid by the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Corporation as against the premium paid by the petitioner. Strangely enough, it will appear from the ledger that despite the receipt of this amount from the Credit Guarantee Corporation, the respondent instead of closing the account by adjusting the said amount, kept the account alive and continuously debiting amount by way of interest and payment of premium to C.G.C, by way of premium although, it was not paid to the said Credit Guarantee Corporation. The aforesaid fact alone is sufficient I hold that the ledger filed by the Corporation is absolutely baseless, false and malafide. 22. It is submitted that after the receipt of the amount from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. the Respondent-Corporation is not entitled to further claim any amount from the petitioner. It is further submitted that while filing the reply and annexing the ledger the Respondent-Corporation deliberately and intentionally suppressed the fact of payment of the aforesaid amount by the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India. 23. On 29.9.1994 the petitoiner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the Corporation in which following facts have been stated: A) In view of the fact that the petitioner-Unit became sick which was admitted by the Respondent-Corporation vide thier letter No. 2541 dated 18.1.1989 (Annexure-11) to the writ application), the Respondent-Corporation was not justified in charging interest and depriving the petitioner from Rehabilitation and getting all other benefits which was permissible under the law. The so-called rejection by the Screening Committee of the case of the petitioner for Rehabilitation was absolutely illegal and malafide. The Respondent-Corporation never cared to take up the case of the petitioner-Unit for Rehabilitation Programme and never guided for nursing of the Unit and thereby completely defaulted in discharging its duty. B) As stated above, the Corporation had agreed to take up the petitoiner-Unit under Rehabilitation Programme on the condition of deposit of substantial amount of interest by the petitioner and in response thereof the petitioner paid the substantial amount of Rs. 50,000.00 . B) As stated above, the Corporation had agreed to take up the petitoiner-Unit under Rehabilitation Programme on the condition of deposit of substantial amount of interest by the petitioner and in response thereof the petitioner paid the substantial amount of Rs. 50,000.00 . Even after deposit of the substantial amount the Corporation neither, fulfilled its promise to rehabilitate the petitioner-Unit nor asked the petitioner that the amount deposited by the petitioner was not substantial. In that view of the matter, there has been no reason for the Corporation not to implement the Rehabilitation Programme of the petitioner-Unit. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs : (i) As stated above, in view of the fact that out of total loan of Rs. 7.10 lacs, the petitioner already paid Rs. 5,80,200.00 before 1987 and till the year 1987 total amount paid by the petitioner to the Corporation is Rs. 8.30 lacs which is much more the amount which was disbursed to the petitioner. In the year 1987, therefore, the only amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation by way of interest was about Rs. 2 lacs and odd, which is evident from the fact that a sum of Rs. 2, 31, 06.79 p. was received by the Corporation from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India under the Deposit Insurance Credit Guarantee Scheme. After the receipt of the aforesaid amount by the Corporation from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, the Respondent-Corporation is not entitled to recover any further amount from the petitioner. (ii) Even assuming but not admitting that the Respondent-Corporation was entitled to recover further amount from the petitioner-Unit after the receipt of Rs. 2,31,106.79 p. from the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India in the year 1987, the said amount recoverable from the petitioner cannot and shall not exceed to the actual amount lying due to the petitioner in the year 1987 minus the amount received by the Corporation from the Credit Corporation of India. In this regard, the petitioner in its petition dated 2.8.1991 gave the : . details of the interest which was payable by the petitioner and the amount paid by it. As per the calculation, the petitioner stated in the said petition that in the event interest is charged the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs. 801895.00 . In this regard, the petitioner in its petition dated 2.8.1991 gave the : . details of the interest which was payable by the petitioner and the amount paid by it. As per the calculation, the petitioner stated in the said petition that in the event interest is charged the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs. 801895.00 . Since, the petitioner was not aware about the payment of Rs. 2,31,106.79 p. by the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India to the Respondent-Corporation, the same amount was not deducted from the aforesaid amount. However, after deducting the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,31,106,79 p. from the outstanding balance of Rs. 80,1895.00 , the petitioner cannot and shall not be liable to pay more than Rs. 5,70,788.21 p. to the Respondent-Corporation. 25. On 14.3.1995 the Corporation filed supplementary affidavit stating the following facts in reply to the written argument :- - 4. That with regard to the statements made in Para 5 of the reply of the petitioner to the synopsis filed by the respondents it is stated that Rs. 8.22 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner by the Board of Directors of the respondents in 31st January 1977 and out of which a sum of Rs. 7.10 lakhs was disburshed to the petitioner. 5. That the petitioner has failed in making repayment of loan according to the terms agreed upon by him. There respondents are charging interest as per terms of the loan sanctioned and agreed by the party as per terms and conditions in the Mortgage deed. 6. That with regard to the statements made in Para 12 of the petitioners reply to the synopsis filed by the respondents, it is stated that the D.I.C.G. Corporation claim is a matter between Bihar State Financial Corporation and D.I.C.G.C. and it has nothing to do with the petitioners. Since the petitioner is capable to repay the liabilities of the Corporation. There respondents have to refund this amount to D.I.C.G.C. The amount received from D.I.C.G.C. has been retained by B.S.F.C. in sundry deposit (The amount received from D.I.C.G.C. has been kept reserved in B.S.F.C. Account) the Bihar State Financial Corporation can in no way part with the credit of this amount to the petitioners account especially when the assests of the concern is substantial and the concern is capable to repay the entire loan. 26. Mr. 26. Mr. Suresh Prasad learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the Corporation is still agreeable to give time to the petitioner to clear off its dues. According to the Corporation total which comes to Rs. 32 Lakhs whereas the amount is much less of the petitioner. It is not possible to decide one way or other with regard to the liability of the petitioner. It is not possible to decide one way or the other the liability of the petitioner. However, it is desirable that the actual liability of the petitioner be determined by the joint sitting of the patties. The petitioner in the meantime shall pay Rs. 8 (eight) lakhs in instalments, i.e. Rs. 3 (three) lakhs within four months and thereafter Rs. 1 (one) lakh every month. The balance amount of liability, if any, determined by Joint sitting of the parties shall be cleared by the petitioner within 3 years from the date of such determination at the same rate and interval. If the petitioner fails to pay two consecutive instalments, the Corporation will be entitled to take action under law. No further interest wil be chargeable on the balance amount, if any, so determined by the parties. 27. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner/respondents have any difficulty in complying the order, they may more this Court for clarification/modification of the order within six weeks from today.