GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 11. 4. 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows : a term loan for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed pursuant to the letter of sanction dated 17. 6. 1992 by the West bengal Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) to the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners failed to repay the loan. On 11. 7. 1996, the Corporation issued a notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Notional possession was taken over on 14. 8. 1996. Case of the writ petitioners is that the Corporation in view of the negotiations between the parties subsequently released possession. After protracted negotiations between the parties, a one time settlement was agreed to by the Corporation by its letter dated 24. 3. 2000 by which the Corporation agreed, to accept a sum of rs. 24 lakhs in full and final settlement of its claim. The text of the letter dated 24. 3. 2000 is set out herein-below"dear Sir, kindly note that our appropriate authority has reduced the amount for full and final settlement of your accounts to Rs. 24 lakhs (Rupees twenty four lakhs) only to be paid in the following manner: 1. Rs. 10. 00 lakhs. . . . . . to be paid latest by 31. 3. 2000. 2. Rs. 14. 00 lakhs. . . . . . to be paid within 6 months w. e. f. . . . . . . . . . . April 2000 by monthly instalments. Rs. 24. 00 lakhs. You are requested to ignore our earlier letter bearing No. Suri/sm/gr/adv/hp/3002 dated 15. 3. 2000 and to stick to the aforesaid repayment schedule. Kindly acknowledge receipt and pay the first instalment within the due date. " ( 2 ) AS on 24. 3. 2000, the total outstanding dues of the Corporation were Rs. 41. 82 lakhs. The mortgaged assets were valued at rs. 46. 78 lakhs by a Government approved valuer in March 2000. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners did not pay the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by 31. 3. 2000 as stipulated in the letter dated 2. 1. 3. 2000 which is set out, hereinabove, or at all. 41. 82 lakhs. The mortgaged assets were valued at rs. 46. 78 lakhs by a Government approved valuer in March 2000. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners did not pay the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by 31. 3. 2000 as stipulated in the letter dated 2. 1. 3. 2000 which is set out, hereinabove, or at all. The writ petitioners are stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. The Corporation in the circumstances by its letter dated 6. 4. 2000 (inadvertently written as 6. 32. 000) communicated to the writ petitioners that the one time settlement contained in the letter dated 24. 3. 2000 stood withdrawn since the writ petitioners had failed to act in terms thereof. The writ petitioners did not reply to this letter. ( 4 ) IT appears that on 5. 4. 2000, the Corporation received an offer from the respondent No. 3 for the mortgaged properties at a sum of Rs. 33 lakhs. The Corporation, in the circumstances, by its letter dated 20. 4. 2000 communicated the aforesaid fact to the writ petitioners and called upon them either to quote a better offer or to take the property at rs. 33 lakhs which was the price offered by the respondent No. 3. ( 5 ) THE writ petitioners challenged the legality of the letter dated 20. 4. 2000 on the grounds of malafide, arbitrariness, discrimination and illegality arising from non-issuance of the notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations act, 1951 on the supposition that the eariier notice under Section 29 is deemed to have been withdrawn. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge from time to time passed orders granting liberty to the writ petitioners to pay monies to the Corporation without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. It appears that pursuant to orders of Court, the writ petitioners have paid a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs to the Corporation. The learned Single Judge has ultimately allowed the writ petition holding inter alia as follows :-"admittedly, the petitioner could not perform by paying the initial sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by 31st March, 2000. I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents to put an end to the said contract, but this repudiation has not been accepted. 10 lakhs by 31st March, 2000. I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents to put an end to the said contract, but this repudiation has not been accepted. It is settled law in certain circumstances, relief can be given excusing default by order of payment, so it was not open for the respondents to take action for sale of the properly without giving an opportunity. No notice under Section 29 of the said Act was given after the breach being committed pursuant to the modified term. Therefore, the action taken for sale on the alleged plea of default of modified term is not in consonance with the provision of State Financial Corporation Act. Moreover, I am inclined to accept the argurnent of Mr. Mukherjee that W. B. F. C. cannot act like an ordinary money lender and in order to fulfil the object of the Act, it should see that industry is developed and promoted. In terms of the Court's order when the petitioner has paid up the entire amount of Rs. 24 lakhs, I do not find any justification that the petitioner should be deprived of this benefit. But, the petitioner could not pay the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs within the time schedule of 31st March, 2000. So, the respondents-Corporation is entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from 31st March, 2000 till 19th September, 2000 when the said initial sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid. Fact remains that the petitioner even before expiry of six months commencing from April 2000 has paid the balance sum of Rs. 14 lakhs. Therefore. the petitioner shall pay interest as aforesaid to the respondents within a period of fortnight from date. It is recorded that in terms of my earlier order, the writ petitioner has paid interest to the successful bidder being represented by Mr. Kumar. The respondent Corporation shall refund the amount of earnest money paid by the intending purchaser and such payment shall be made within 15 days from date and the writ petitioner shall also pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent till fortnight from date. After payment of interest to W. B. F. C. as aforesaid as well as the intending purchaser, the w. B. F. C. shall, release all the documents and will free the petitioner from all encumbrances. After payment of interest to W. B. F. C. as aforesaid as well as the intending purchaser, the w. B. F. C. shall, release all the documents and will free the petitioner from all encumbrances. The aforesaid release, shall be effected within a period of fortnight from the making of payment of interest. " ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the Corporation has come up in appeal. ( 8 ) IN our opinion, the one time settlement contained in the letter dated 24. 3. 2000 can be looked at from two angles ; as an offer or a concluded contract. If it is considered to be an offer then the writ petitioners should have accepted the offer by acting in accordance therewith, that is to say by making payment of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within 31. 3. 2000. This was evidently not done. Therefore, the offer did not ripen into a contract. Upon expiry of 31. 3. 2000, the offer ceased to exist. If, on the other hand, it is treated to be a contract the writ petitioners repudiated the same by not acting in terms thereof. The repudiation on the part of the writ petitioners was accepted by the Corporation by its letter dated 6. 4. 2000. The resultant effect is that the contract ceased to exist. Therefore, from whichever angle, it is looked at the offer or the contract contained in the letter dated 24. 3 2000 stood extinguished. We are unable to subscribe to the views of the learned Single Judge that the repudiation has not been accepted. The repudiation was in fact accepted by the Corporation by its letter dated 6 4. 2000. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners has contended that Court has power to extend the time for making payment in order to relieve the writ petitioners of the forfeiture. He has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Jadabendranath Misra v. Smt. Manorama Debbya, wherein a Division bench of this Court held that "court had ample power, in an appropriate case, to grant relief against, forfeiture, even without the consent of the parties" to extend the time for making payment. That was a case in relation to an order passed by the Court on the basis of agreed terms between the parties. That was a case in relation to an order passed by the Court on the basis of agreed terms between the parties. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid case was considered in the case of Periyakkal and Others v. Smt. Dakshyani, wherein Their Lordships held as follows :-"the time for deposit stipulated by the parties became the time allowed by the court and this gave the Court, the jurisdiction to extend time in appropriate cases. Of course, time would not be extended ordinarily, nor for the mere asking. It would be granted in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice. True, the court would not rewrite a contract between the parties but the Court would relieve against a forfeiture clause : And, where the contract of the parties has merged in the order of the Court, the court's freedom to act to further the ends of Justice would surely not stand curtailed. " ( 10 ) IT is apparent from the aforesaid reasoning given by Their lordships that the contract in that case stood merged in the order of court and once that position is realised the court's power to act under Section 148 of the code of Civil Procedure to extend time for making payment stood attracted. No such position emerges in this case. No order in terms of the contract dated 24. 3. 2000 was passed. Therefore, the question of extending time under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure will not arise. ( 11 ) MOREOVER, the facts of this case are not such where the Court finds itself impelled to act or exercise discretion in favour of the constituent. As a matter of fact, there is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the writ petitioners failed to adhere to the schedule of payment recorded in the letter dated 24. 3. 2001. It is also significant that the writ petitioners did not reply to the letter dated 6. 4. 2000. There is nothing to suggest that the offer contained in the letter dated 24. 3. 2000 was accepted. Only way the offer could have been accepted is by paying Rs. 10 lakhs as stipulated in the letter itself. This is not one of the rare cases where the Court will exercise discretion. ( 12 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the Corporation could not act like an ordinary money lender. Only way the offer could have been accepted is by paying Rs. 10 lakhs as stipulated in the letter itself. This is not one of the rare cases where the Court will exercise discretion. ( 12 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the Corporation could not act like an ordinary money lender. In our opinion, in commercial matters, the Corporation is expected to act like a prudent businessman. If any authority is needed for this proposition we may cite the case of Rashbehari v. State of Orissa. ( 13 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that no notice under Section 29 of the west Bengal Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was given. In our opinion, such notice had already been given and no further notice was necessary. ( 14 ) THE learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason nor has in fact held that the notice dated 20 4. 2000, which is under challenge, was bad or illegal. In our view, the said notice dated 20. 4. 2000 was given by the corporation in all its fairness and in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U. P. Financial Corporation and Others, where Their Lordships laid down the guidelines which stipulate inter alia as follows:"if tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder. If unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transferred to him. And the arrears remaining, thereafter, should be rescheduled to be recovered in instalments with interest after the payment of last instalment fixed under the agreement entered into as a result of tendered amount. If he brings third parties with higher offer, it would be tested and may be accepted. "therefore, no fault can be found with the notice dated 20. 4. 2000. ( 15 ) MR. Mallick appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that his client is no longer interested in buying the unit. If he brings third parties with higher offer, it would be tested and may be accepted. "therefore, no fault can be found with the notice dated 20. 4. 2000. ( 15 ) MR. Mallick appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that his client is no longer interested in buying the unit. Whether the respondent No. 3 is interested in buying or not is a matter for them to decide but it would be open to the Corporation to take steps in accordance with law in view of the order which we propose to pass. ( 16 ) IN our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Therefore, status quo ante should be restored. All benefits received under orders of Court should be restored, by respective parties. ( 17 ) AN opportunity should be given to the writ petitioners to buy the unit at the sum of Rs. 33 lakhs within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. According to us, interest of justice will be subserved if the Corporation is directed to accept the said sum of Rs. 33 lakhs in full and final settlement of its claim. The Corporation is, therefore, directed to act accordingly. In the event, however, the writ petitioners do not make such payment, it would be open to the corporation to sell the unit to the respondent no. 3 and to proceed to recover its balance dues from the writ petitioners. In the event, the respondent No. 3 is unwilling to buy the unit, it would be open to the Corporation to put up the unit for sale over again and to proceed against the writ petitioners and the respondent No. 3 in accordance with law. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Ashok Kumar Mathur, C. J.-I agree. Appeal allowed.