JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner prayed that respondent RFC be directed to hand over the industrial unit situated in plot No. 81 and 82 to petitioner and Mrs. Sudarshana Sharma upon payment of its legitimate dues calculated on the basis of its policy, guidelines and circulars. 2. The case of petitioner that petitioner has set up a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Uma Enterprises in the year 1978 for establishing and running a marble cutting and polishing ---. Upon an application made in this respect, the petitioner was granted a temporary registration by the District Industries Centre on 25.4.1978. For the purpose of establishing a marble cutting o unit in the name and style or M/s. Uma Enterprises, the petitioner applied to the District Industries Centre for grant of margin money loan which was sanctioned in.March, 1979, but that was not sufficient, and thereafter, petitioner approached to Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter, referred as 'RFC') and RFC has sanctioned loan of Rs.1.38 Lacs. The case of petitioner that to secure the said loan s amount, the requisite mortgage deed in respect of plot No. 82 was signed by the petitioner in favour of RFC on 10.8.78. In 1983, petitioner also prayed for additional loan in the sum of Rs.28,000/-. That was also sanctioned by the RFC, but for numerous reasons and beyond the control of petitioner, the petitioner was not able to operate the said unit in a profitable manner and could not clear the instalments liability after October, 1984, therefore, he preferred to sell that industrial unit. He contacted the various persons and finally he contacted one Shri Ashok Kumar Rander and it was agreed that subject to the requisite approval and consent being granted by the concerned Financial Institutions and the Government, the petitioner may sell the unit to the perspective purchaser. The agreement to this effect was reduced in writing with Shri Ashok Kumar Rander and that agreement has been acted upon. The agreement to this effect was reduced in writing with Shri Ashok Kumar Rander and that agreement has been acted upon. Thereafter, action was taken Under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter, referred the Act of 1951), the possession of the factory has been taken over by the RFC on 29.3.86 and then that has been transferred to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. To avoid the confusion between M/ s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. and M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd., the business was run in the name of M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. which is a proprietory concern of petitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma. The unit is also purchased by M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. but purchaser is a partnership firm consisting of Shri Lal Chand, Smt. Geeta Devi, Ashok Kumar and Smt. Uma Devi, therefore, hereafter for the firm which has purchased the asset, I will refer it as partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. 3. Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there was an agreement in writing to sell the unit to firm M/s. Uma Enterprises, but that was not finalised and petitioner prepared himself to clear the dues of RFC, but in spite of that, RFC has taken over the possession of unit and transferred it to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. He further submitted that he was not party to negotiations between partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises and RFC, therefore, his unit has wrongly been transferred to firm M/s. Uma Enterprises, hence the industrial unit be handed over to petitioner, he is prepared to pay all the legitimate dues. 4. A Partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises to which the unit has been transferred by the petitioner was not made a party to the writ petition, therefore, Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises moved an application to implead partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises as a respondent. The application of Mr. Rastogi was allowed and the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises was impleaded as respondent No.5. Mr. Rastogi has submitted that the petitioner agreed to sell the industrial unit to him and to this effect, the agreement was reduced in writing and on acting upon the agreement, the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises has paid various dues to various financial institutions as agreed upon and also prepared to pay the outstanding balance amount of loan payable to RFC. The possession was handed over to the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises in 1985, by the petitioner himself and formal possession has also been given by RFC on 31.3.86. The petitioner had no grievance and thereafter partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises is paying the instalments of loan to RFC, as owner of the industrial unit in question. Even the sale deed was also executed on 16.7.85 and in that it is clearly mentioned that unit has been sold to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. 5. Mr. Soral, learned counsel for RFC has submitted that when petitioner has agreed to sell the industrial unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises and agreement has been reduced in writing and it was requested to RFC that now the unit be handed over to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises, the petitioner is also defaulter, therefore, the possession was taken on 29.3.86 and when partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises prepared to pay the balance amount of loan the possession was handed over to that partnership firm. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties. A letter dated 1.7.85 (Ann. 8) has been written by petitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Uma Enterprises to Branch Manager, RFC to the effect that the proprietor of firm M/s. Uma Enterprises is unable to run the industry because of acute short of the funds, therefore he requested that this unit be transferred to the partners of M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. The partners are Shri Lal Chand, Smt. Geeta Devi, Shri Ashok Kumar and Smt. Uma Devi, Ann. 9 is agreement entered between petitioner and partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. wherein the petitioner agreed that industrial unit situated at plot No. 81 and 82 which is a proprietorship concern of petitioner, he sold that unit to partnership firm M/ s. Uma Enterprises Ltd. in the sum of Rs.3,11,000/- and Rs.1,36,000i- has been taken in cash from the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises and the balance amount of Rs.1,75,000/- will be paid to clear the loan which was taken by the petitioner. The details of outstanding loan is as under vkj0,Q0lh0 1]25]000@& fjdks 2]544]55@& m|ksx foHkkx 25]000-00@& ;w0dks0 cSad] t;iqj 13]200]00@& vkj0,l0bZ0ch0 4]500-00@& In the agreement, further the details of plot of land, building and machinery are given as under- " ;g gS fd QSDV~h esa cspku esa fuEu phtsa lfEefyr gSa%& 1- IykV u0 th&81 th&82 ij fLFkr leLr py vpy lEifr tks fuEu izdkj gS& 1- e'khujh ux 2 iRFkj phjus dh e'khu] dVhax dVj dszu 2- fctyh dh eksVj %& 3 dqy 72] 1@2 ,p0ih0 3- edkukr %& vkfQl Cyksd ( dfVax lSM o dVj lSM ) 4- LVksj dk lkeku %& VwYlA 5- vU; yksgk ikfr o vkStkj %& Ldzsi o iqjkuk okVj iEiA " 7. It was also agreed upon that petitioner will get the unit transferred in the name of partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises and in the last, it is stated in the agreement that he has handed over the possession of movable and immovable assets of industrial unit to that partnership firm on 1.7.85 and from 1.7.85, partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises will be, the owner of this industrial unit in question. In pursuance of this agreement, partnership firm has not only paid Rs.1,36,000/- in cash to petitioner, but also paid some outstanding dues to some financial institutions which were payable by the petitioner. 8. Ann.10 is a document whereby petitioner Vinod Kumar Sharma has given general power of attorney in favour of partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Ann. 11 dated 15.7.85 is a letter to Branch Manager, RFC whereby partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises has shown his intention to purchase the unit of firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. In response, the Assistant Manager, RFC has written.a letter Ann. 12 dated 4.1.86 to Ashok Kumar, a partner of M/s. Uma Enterprises requesting him to submit latest offer along with cheque of 10% amount of the outstanding amount, so further necessary action can be taken at the earliest. Ann. 14 dated 8.1.86 is a letter from Ashok Kumar to RFC requesting the RFC that penal interest be waived. Ann. 17 dated 31.1.86 is a letter by Manager RFC to partner Ashok Kumar that the offer given by to RFC for taking over the unit is on the terms and conditions stated in Ann. Ann. 14 dated 8.1.86 is a letter from Ashok Kumar to RFC requesting the RFC that penal interest be waived. Ann. 17 dated 31.1.86 is a letter by Manager RFC to partner Ashok Kumar that the offer given by to RFC for taking over the unit is on the terms and conditions stated in Ann. 17 and partner Ashok Kumar was requested to take over the possession of the industrial unit within 30 days from the date of this letter. 9. Ann. 18 is a letter dated 7.2.86 to Manager RFC by partner Ashok Kumar wherein it is requested that he is prepared to pay 25% of the agreed amount on transfer of the unit in the name of partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises and, therefore, arrangement be made to execute the sale agreement in favour of partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises Ann. 22 is a authorisation letter in favour of one Shri I.S. Rathore, authorising Shri Rathorc to take over the possession of the unit. The possession of the unit has been taken over by the RFC. Ann. 24 is agreement to transfer the unit as agreed upon, a sum of Rs.33,333/- has been deposited by Ashok Kumar partner of the firm as part payment of sale price Rs.1,33,332,1- and the balance amount Rs.99,999/- shall he paid by purchaser in five years in quarterly instalments. The first instalment shall fall due on the first day of August, 1986. The purchaser shall also pay interest on the balance sale price at the rate of 12.5% per annum. The unit was finally handed over to partner Ashok Kumar, a partner of M/s. Uma Enterprises. The partnership firm was also defaulter and the possession has been taken back by the RFC from partnership firm in 1996, but I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the prayer of the petitioner that whether the possession taken over by the RFC in March, 1986 was in accordance with law and whether the RFC can be directed to hand over the possession of unit hack to petitioner. 10. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a defaulter and the action can be taken in case of default Under section 29 of the Act of 1951. Section 29 of the Act of 1951 reads as under "29. 10. It is an admitted fact that petitioner is a defaulter and the action can be taken in case of default Under section 29 of the Act of 1951. Section 29 of the Act of 1951 reads as under "29. Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default - (1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof (or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation) or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the (right to take over the management or possession or both) of the industrial concern), as well as the (right to transfer by way of lease or sale) and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation." 11. In exercise of powers Under section 29 of the Act of 1951, the possession was taken by the RFC vide Ann. 22. Annexure-7 dated 10.8.87 is a mortgage deed which inter alia provides that in case of default of loan, how the RFC proceed. Para 11 of the mortgage deed reads as under "11. In exercise of powers Under section 29 of the Act of 1951, the possession was taken by the RFC vide Ann. 22. Annexure-7 dated 10.8.87 is a mortgage deed which inter alia provides that in case of default of loan, how the RFC proceed. Para 11 of the mortgage deed reads as under "11. The corporation and its Officers and Agents shall be entitled in default of payment of the moneys and/or instalments due to the Corporation or in case of any contingency or emergency arising which in the opinion of the Corporation would make it necessary for the Corporation to take possession of the hypothecated assets to enter upon the premises where the hypothecated assets shall be lying and to break open outer or other doors and to take possession or recover and receive the same and the Corporation shall be entitled to appoint any officer or officers of the Corporation as Receivers of the hypothecated assets with power to do all things as fully and effectually as the Borrower could do and/or sell together or in lots either by public auction of private contract or otherwise dispose of or deal with all or any part of the hypothecated assets with liberty to buy in at any sale by auction and to rescind or vary any contract for sale without being answerable or accountable for any loss or diminution in price and without being hound to exercise any of such powers or being liable for any loss in the exercise of such power to give effectual receipts and discharges for the purchase money and to do all other acts and things for completing the sale as the Corporation shall think proper and to apply the net sale proceeds of such sales in or towards liquidation of the balance due to the Corporation and the Borrower hereby agrees to accept the Corporation's statement of the realisation and to pay any shortfall or deficiency therein shown PROVIDED HOWEVER the Corporation shall be entitled to charge and retain as part of the costs charges and expenses incurred in connection herein such commission as the Corporation shall at its sole discretion fix and shall not be liable to account for the same to the Borrower. Such commission shall be in addition to any brokerage or outgoing payable in respect of any such - sale. Such commission shall be in addition to any brokerage or outgoing payable in respect of any such - sale. If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to pay the amount of such commission the Borrower shall pay the same forth with to the Corporation on demand." 12. Mr. Kuhad has submitted that the power of attorney was cancelled, therefore, the agreement to sell Ann. 7 cannot he acted upon and RFC has wrongly transferred the unit to the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Mere withdrawal of power of attorney is not enough. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, the agreement Ann. 9 is not in dispute. Petitioner agreed upon that the industrial unit which was situated at plot Nos. 81 and 82, is transferred to the partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises in the sum of Rs.3,11,000/-. Rs.1,36,000/- was accepted in cash and Rs.1,75,000/- was outstanding loans. Out of them, some outstanding loans were paid by respondent partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. In that agreement itself, it is stated that possession has been given to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Annexure-8 is a letter by the petitioner to RFC wherein he himself expressed that he is unable to run that industrial unit. He prepared to sell it to prospective buyer viz. partnership firm ⅛ Uma Enterprises, the partners of the firm are Lal Chand, Smt. Geeta Devi, Ashok Kumar and Sint. Uma Devi. Not only that, he requested to RFC that this unit be transferred in the name of the aforesaid lirm. After this agreement, even the instalments were paid by partnership firm, the possession of the unit has also been taken over by the RFC vide Annexure-22 on 29.3.86 and the unit was formally transferred to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises vide Ann. 24. 13. The agreement to sell was executed in 1985 and acted upon by the petitioner and partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Not only that, on request of petitioner, RFC has completed the transfer formalities of unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Only in 1996. petitioner has raised the grievance that unit has wrongly been transferred to partnership firm m/s. Lima Enterprises. First time in 1996, he filed this writ and challenged the transfer of unit to partnership firm. Not only that, on request of petitioner, RFC has completed the transfer formalities of unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Only in 1996. petitioner has raised the grievance that unit has wrongly been transferred to partnership firm m/s. Lima Enterprises. First time in 1996, he filed this writ and challenged the transfer of unit to partnership firm. For 10 years, he kept quite and has not raised any objection or grievance against the action of the RFC, that means when lie entered into agreement and accepted the part payment from Ashok Kumar, partner of firm and has requested the RFC to transfer the industrial unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. That unit has been transferred to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. The conduct of Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, proprietor of M/s. Uma Enterprises, left no doubt that he has sold the unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. On his request. the RFC has also completed the formalities of transfer of unit from the name of partnership firm M/s. Lima Enterprises to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. Petitioner himself has accepted the money and requested the RFC to transfer this unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises. He is also defaulter, therefore, on that ground also, it cannot be said that the possession taken by the RFC is illegal. In these circumstances, how it can be said that action of the RFC is arbitrary and transfer of unit to partnership firm M/s. Uma Enterprises is illegal.In view of these undisputed facts, I find no force in this petition and the same is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******