JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:--- The appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) had taken loan from E.D.C., namely, respondent (defendant in the suit). The respondent recalled the said loan vide Notice dated 7-11-1994 issued under section 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The appellants filed a Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji seeking various reliefs including declaration that the said Notice dated 7-11-1994 recalling the loan and seeking re-payment of Rs.90,81,358/- be declared illegal, null and void and contrary to the terms of mortgage and/or agreements of finance. The appellants also claimed a sum of Rs.1,59,79,138-62 with 18% interest thereon due to losses and damages suffered by them on account of non-disbursement of balance loan of Rs.13,00,000/- and subsidy of Rs.25,00,000/-. The other relief sought was restraint on the respondent form objecting to transfer of mortgage, transfer of right, title and interest in the assets as well as from making public issue of the shares of the appellants. Along with the suit, the appellants filed an application for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from in any manner taking any steps to implement Notice dated 7-11-1994 and from objecting for transfer of mortgage deed and/or transferring right, title and interest in their assets and/or from making public issue of shares and/or from running the unit set up by them. Interim relief relating to disbursement of the balance loan amount of Rs.12,52,200/- and subsidy amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- was also sought. 2. The Trial Court, by impugned Order dated 20th December, 1995, which is challenged in this appeal, dismissed the temporary injunction application. 3. Advocates for the parties were heard at length at admission stage. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Talaulikar submitted before me that the respondent cannot resort to the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, since the respondent is a Company under the Companies Act, and not a Corporations under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In this connection, learned Advocate Shri Satish Sonak placed before me a Gazette, Notification from Official Gazette, Government of Goa. In this connection, learned Advocate Shri Satish Sonak placed before me a Gazette, Notification from Official Gazette, Government of Goa. The said Notification reads as under:- "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) IF-II Section New Delhi, the 4th January, 1993 Notification--F.No.6/19/91-IF.II GSR-Whereas the State Government of Goa have requested that the provisions of sections 29,30 and 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951) may be made applicable to the Economic Development Corporation of Goa, Daman and Diu Limited, being an institution established by the State Government which has for its object the financing of Industrial concerns; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Central Government hereby directs that the provisions of sections 29, 30 and 31 of the said Act shall apply to the Economic Development Corporation of Goa, Daman and Diu Limited. Sd/- (V.P. BHARDWAJ) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India." In view of the said Notification, there is no force in the contention of learned Advocate Shri Talaulikar, since the provisions of sections 29, 30 and 31 have been made applicable to the respondent. 5. The next contention advanced by learned Advocate Shri Talaulikar is that the respondent had neglected to disburse the balance loan of Rs.13,00,000/- as well as the subsidy amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of which the industry set up by the appellants could not take off and the appellants suffered huge losses amounting to Rs.1,34,79,138-62. Thus, according to learned Advocate Shri Talaulikar, the resulting situation is the creation of the respondents themselves and, under these circumstances, respondents cannot enforce or recall the entire payment of the loan granted to the appellants. 6. In this respect, the contention of learned Advocate Shri Satish Sonak is that a sum of Rs.50,47,000/- was disbursed to the appellants between 26-1-1991 and 31-12-1991 on the basis of eligible ratio for which they were entitled; that the appellants were not entitled to disbursement of the balance loan of about Rs.13,00,000/- which was agreed to be advanced. In respect of subsidy, it was submitted that the subsidy in question is required to be given by the Central Government and the respondent is only an agency in between, but the appellants have not made the Central Government a party to the proceedings. In respect of subsidy, it was submitted that the subsidy in question is required to be given by the Central Government and the respondent is only an agency in between, but the appellants have not made the Central Government a party to the proceedings. It is also contended that the appellants were not yet eligible to claim subsidy, since the subsidy could be given to the appellants, as per Rules, within a period of 6 months from the date of completion of investment and going into production. According to Shri Sonak, the appellants had never reached the stage of production and the trial production on the basis of which subsidy is claimed by the appellant is not sufficient to grant subsidy to them. 7. The main ground on which Notice dated 7-11-1994 is attacked by the appellants is the non-disbursement of balance loan of Rs.13,00,000/- and the subsidy amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- and on account of the said non-disbursement, the appellants suffered losses to the tune of Rs.1,34,79,138-62. Except for the said bare figure as the amount of loss, damage, costs, charges, expenses including loss or profit suffered/incurred or caused to them and arising out of negligence of the respondent, no data has been furnished by the appellants in support of the said claim. The re-payment of the loan had to start from November, 1993 and till today, the loan amount paid is stated to be 3,00,000/-. The upto-date claim of respondents is stated to be in the region of Rs.1,26,00,000/-. Even before the re-payment of the loan had to start in November, 1993, the appellants, in the month of May 1993, had sought permission from the respondent to sell the unit. The respondent had no objection for sale of the unit provided the dues were cleared. Subsequently, on 9-9-1993, the appellants sought permission regarding proposal of public issue to enable them to tide over their additional financial requirements for importing some machinery and to pay the loan also and, in fact, the respondent vide letter dated 14-10-1993, had conveyed its approval for public issue. This shows that even before re-payment was to start, the unit was in doldrums and prima facie had become a sick unit. This shows that even before re-payment was to start, the unit was in doldrums and prima facie had become a sick unit. It is pertinent to note that prior to Notice dated 7-11-1994 recalling the loan, the appellants had never placed before the respondent their case that they had suffered losses or damages on account of non-disbursement of the balance loan and the subsidy. No quantified figure of losses or damages was ever submitted by the appellants prior to Notice dated 7-11-1994 and it is only thereafter that, in reply to the said Notice, the appellants for the first time came out with a case that on account of non-disbursement of balance loan and subsidy, they had suffered losses, damages, etc. to the tune of Rs.1,34,79,138-62. The stand taken by the appellants in the suit relating to the said losses and damages is nothing but an after-thought with a view to somehow or the other overcome the said Notice dated 7-11-1994. 8. The entire purpose of section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is that the loans and advances granted by State Financial Corporations or Corporations brought within the ambit of the said Act should be capable of being realized without the intervention of the Court. The remedy provided therein is with a view to save the Corporation from having to wade its way through the meandering lanes and by-lanes of Law courts. 9. In the meantime, the possession of the unit has already been taken over by the respondent and it appears that the appellants have obtained an ex parte order restraining the respondent from sale of the property of the appellants of which possession has already been taken by the respondent. 10. The question which, therefore, arises is whether the appellants can resist proceedings under section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for the recovery of loan on the ground of losses suffered due to non-payment of instalments of Term Loan in time. 10. The question which, therefore, arises is whether the appellants can resist proceedings under section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for the recovery of loan on the ground of losses suffered due to non-payment of instalments of Term Loan in time. In this respect, it has been held by Punjab and Haryana High Court in (Industrial Finance Corporation of India and another v. M/s. Sehgal Papers Ltd., and others)1, A.I.R 1986 P. H. 21 as under :- "In a proceeding under section 30 of the I.F.C. Act initiated by the Corporation for the recovery of the loan it is not open to the respondent-Industrial concern to contend that on account of not paying the instalments of term loan in time, the respondent-company suffered huge loss and the petitioner-institution is, therefore, not entitled to recover the loan, unless it compensates the respondent-company to the extent of the loss suffered by it. If the respondent-Company is entitled to some damages, it may institute a suit for recovery thereof against the petitioner-institution. It cannot be allowed to say that the petitioner-institution is not entitled to recover the loan, unless it is compensated by the petitioner-institution to the extent of the loss suffered by it. A.I.R 1983 All 234, Rel. on." It is clear from the above that the industrial concern cannot resist such proceedings on the ground of non-disbursement of instalments of Term Loan in time resulting in huge losses and the remedy open is to file a suit for recovery of damages. The industrial concern cannot take up the plea that the Corporation is not entitled to recover the loan unless it is compensated to the extent of loss suffered by it. What could not be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Mere filing of suit for damages, by itself, would not operate as bar for enforcement of claim of the Corporation under section 30 and the industrial concern shall have to make out a strong prima facie case for adjustment of claim for damages against the claim of the Corporation. 11. In the case under consideration, there is nothing, prima facie, to come to the conclusion that the appellants had suffered losses, damages, etc. on account of non-disbursement of loan in time. Bare averments, without any basis whatsoever, are not sufficient. 11. In the case under consideration, there is nothing, prima facie, to come to the conclusion that the appellants had suffered losses, damages, etc. on account of non-disbursement of loan in time. Bare averments, without any basis whatsoever, are not sufficient. The contention of the respondent is that the loans were disbursed on the eligible ratio and the appellants were not entitled to disbursement of the balance loan amount. 12. Insofar as the question of disbursement of subsidy is concerned, the said claim could, prima facie, be entertained only after the appellants had gone into production. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had gone into production and subsidy could not have been granted on the basis of trial production alone. In the indenture of mortgage dated 18th April 1991, the respondent had agreed to disburse a further sum of Rs.67,14,000/- on the appellants complying with all obligations as applicable therein and not ceasing to carry out their business even temporarily. The disbursement of the said loan was in the sole discretion of the respondent depending upon the said condition enumerated above. I have already pointed out that even after disbursement of loan of around Rs.56,47,000/- between 26-1-1991 and 31-12-1991 and even before the re-payment of the loan was to start in November 1993, the financial condition of the appellants was in doldrums and the appellants even applied for permission to the respondent for sale of the unit which was conditionally agreed by the respondent on payment of dues. The appellants also made an attempt to go ahead with the proposal of public issue vide letter dated 9-9-1993 which was approved by the respondent vide letter dated 14-10-1993. In these circumstances, even if the appellants were entitled to disbursement of balance loan, it would not have been advisable on the part of the respondent to disburse the said loan to a unit which had already shown signs of sickness even before take off. 13. Under these circumstance, I do not consider that the Trial Court had made any mistake in refusing the injunction sought by the appellants. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, as such, it is not necessary to admit this Appeal. 14. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Costs shall be borne by the appellants. Appeal dismissed.