J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are hereby putting exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in the matter of W. P. 1691/98. We are deciding this appeal finally at motion hearing stage because there has been a keen contest of the battle of arguments. When this Court was called on to decide theinterlocutory application bearing No. M (C) P 1694/2001, by which the appellants prayed for an interim relief, the arguments were advanced which were going to the root of the matter and touching the core of the controversy. The merit has been totally scanned out and churned out and, therefore, it is as good as hearing this appeal finally. ( 2 ) THE appellants are running three units (1) Panjwani Packagings Pvt. Ltd. (2) Panjwani Plastics and Polyesters. (3) Panjwani Polypropyiene Ltd. owned by Namdeo s/o Phatandas Panjwani. The appellants obtained a loan from M. P. Financial Corporation (MPFC ). They could not repay the said loan according to the scheme of repayment when the loan was granted to them. That resulted in MPFC taking action against them in view of provisions of S. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience ). ( 3 ) THE matter went to the writ Court when the appellants filed W. P. 1691/98. When the said W. P. was decided, it appears that the talks of amicable settlements were going on, initiated and then agreement which was brought on record, as indicated by some portion of the judgment and order, which has been put to challenge in this appeal came in existence. ( 4 ) PANJWANI Packaging Pvt. Ltd. was granted limit to the tune of Rs. 77. 00 lakhs and limit disbursed was to the tune of Rs. 77. 00 lakhs. Panjwani Plastics and Polyesters was granted limit sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 26. 50 lakhs and limit disbursed was Rs. 23. 50 lakhs. Panjwani Polypropyline Ltd. was granted limit to the tune of Rs. 58. 00 lakhs and limit disbursed was to its full extent i. e. Rs. 58. 00 lakhs. M. P. F. C. took over appellants' units under S. 29 of the Act on 8-2-1995. The amount remained to be unpaid. 50 lakhs and limit disbursed was Rs. 23. 50 lakhs. Panjwani Polypropyline Ltd. was granted limit to the tune of Rs. 58. 00 lakhs and limit disbursed was to its full extent i. e. Rs. 58. 00 lakhs. M. P. F. C. took over appellants' units under S. 29 of the Act on 8-2-1995. The amount remained to be unpaid. The amount payable increased and that has finally approached the figures as indicated by the paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and order. It has been pointed out in the said order that as indicated by Anx. P. 5, the payments were to be made as follows : rs. 10. 00 lacs. within one week rs. 30. 00 lacs. up to 31-12-96 rs. 20. 00 lacs. up to 31-1-97 rs. 20. 00 lacs. up to 28-2-97 and rs. 30. 00 lacs. up to 25-3-97 as indicated by the agreement and settlement which was produced before the learned single Judge. ( 5 ) THE order further indicates that Rs. 40. 00 lacs have been paid and period of last payment expired long back prior to the date of the said judgment and order i. e. 1-8-2000. Even then, the amount could not be paid and, therefore, MPFC was required to put the said units to auction. The appellants submitted before this Court that a prospective purchaser is ready to purchase these units in a sum of Rs. 29. 00 lacs and that is making the appellants to have the grievance that their units would be sold to worthless amount and they would be put to heavy loss. That was the main ground on which the appellants made a prayer for grant of interim relief in their favour. ( 6 ) SHRI Sethi, counsel appearing for appellants submitted a submission to justify his case by advancing argument that the appellants are ready to make further payment for the purpose of repaying the entire settled amount; however as the possession of the units has not been given to them they are unable to run the industries and they have been prevented from generating the funds for the purpose of unabling them to repay the settled amount which would be satisfying monetary liability on the part of appellants. Shri Sethi submitted that the appellants are ready to make the payment in view of the said settlement. Shri Sethi submitted that the appellants are ready to make the payment in view of the said settlement. Not only that, they are ready to pay interest for the period for which the default has been committed on their part as indicated by the payment to be made in view of the settled agreement. ( 7 ) SHRI Bhargava, senior counsel appearing for the MPFC submitted that the appellants are coming with a total false case. He submitted that the appellants were given ample opportunity of repaying the amount of loans and thereafter the amount which was agreed to between them. However, they have no real intention to repay the said amount and, therefore, they are not entitled to have a solace in the nature of interim relief or by way of interim breathing time, Shri Bhargava vehemently submitted that right from the beginning the attitude of the appellants is of not paying the loan amount and, therefore, proposal of paying the amount as per agreement, is nothing but a falsehood and a whitewash. He submitted that the valuation of the properties is decreasing day by day and, therefore, the value of those two units is really worth Rs. 29. 00 lacs and, rightly the MPFC is auctioning that property and, therefore, there is no point in prolonging this appeal or granting interim relief to the appellants. Shri Bhargava further submitted that the funds of the MPFC are the public funds and, therefore, it need to be protected from being wasting out. He submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 8 ) SHRI A. K. Sethi, counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U. P. Financial Corpn. , reported in AIR 1993 SC 935 : (1992 All LJ 1202) and pointed out the guidelines/directions which were given by the Supreme Court while deciding the said matter. He submitted that the guidelines indicated that every endeavour should be made to make the unit viable and be put on working condition. If it becomes workable. , reported in AIR 1993 SC 935 : (1992 All LJ 1202) and pointed out the guidelines/directions which were given by the Supreme Court while deciding the said matter. He submitted that the guidelines indicated that every endeavour should be made to make the unit viable and be put on working condition. If it becomes workable. He pointed out that Supreme Court gave elaborate guidelines and, therefore, now it is necessary for this Court to appreciate the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants in view of the spirit of the said judgment and it is for MPFC also to follow the said guidelines and to permit the appellants to stick to the said agreement and make payment as agreed to by the said agreement. ( 9 ) IN the matter of Mahechandra's case (supra) the Supreme Court gave the guidelines which can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder (at page 945 of AIR) : (1) The sale of a unit should always be made by public auction. (2) Valuation of a unit for purpose of determining adequacy of offer or for determining if bid offered was adequate, should always be intimated to the unit holder to enable him to file objection if any as he is vitally interested in getting the maximum price. (3) If tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder. (4) (a) If unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transfered 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 tenderedamount. (b) If he brings third parties with highest offer it would be tested and may be accepted. (5) Sale by private negotiation should be permitted only in very large concerns where investment runs in very huge amount for which ordinary buyer may not be available or the industry itself may be of such nature that by normal buyers may not be available. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. (6) Request of the unit holder to release any part of the property on which the concern is not standing of which he is the owner should normally be granted on condition that sale proceedings shall be deposited in loan account. ( 10 ) IN the same judgment the Supreme Court pointed out the idea behind the spirit of such corporation and the role which is to be played by the Welfare State. It would be necessary to quote the observations of Supreme Court so as to give solace to such unit holders and MPFC for the purpose of avoiding litigations and restraining hardship to unit holders. It would be also facilitating the growth of industries in India and would be a solace to all lower trades tilting towards depression. If that is done, it would avoid the possibility of repetition of great depression which was faced in the year 1929 and United States of America was required to come out with a "new deal". ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court observed that - "mahatma Gandhi, the father of nation, in Swaraj at page 92, stated that - "from, the very beginning it has been my firm belief that agriculture provides the only unfailing and perennial support to the people of this country. India lives in villages. " "villagers are poor and most of them are unemployed or under-employed who need productivity which would add to the wealth of the nation. This vast human resources and man power remain idle, since majority own little or marginal land holdings but depend on agriculture as their livelihood. Cottage, agrobased or medium industries in rural areas give them economic status to the owner, employment potential for sustenance to the workmen and fair price to the producer. The father of the nation laid, therefore, emphasis to establish cottage industries, "to utilize the idle hours of the nation and bring work to the people in their homes. " ( 12 ) THIS applies to small scale industries also where they are to be helped for the purpose of upcoming from the financial difficulties which are tending to take them to ruins or demolishing of the industries resulting in creation of unemployment and addition to persons who are already unemployed, thus, creating depression in the entire industries. " ( 12 ) THIS applies to small scale industries also where they are to be helped for the purpose of upcoming from the financial difficulties which are tending to take them to ruins or demolishing of the industries resulting in creation of unemployment and addition to persons who are already unemployed, thus, creating depression in the entire industries. ( 13 ) IN this context the preamble in enactment of State Financial Corporations 1951 will have to be seen. Lord Halsbury said in Powell v. Kamptan Park Race Course ( (1899) AC 143) that -"when two propositions are quite clear : one that a preamble may afford a useful light as to what a statute intends to reach and another that if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous no preamble may qualifying or cut down the enactment. " Therefore, though the preamble is very short. Its intention can be seen by object which has been indicated by the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act of 1956. The same can also be understood from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act of 1962. It can also be gathered from the statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 1985. ( 14 ) ALL led to a goal of achieving industrial growth for that purpose necessary provisions have been made for giving financial assistance to such industrial units so as to make them independent to repay the loans advanced by MPFC or to repay the amount which has been taken by it for disbursing the sanction limits. It is true, as submitted by Shri Bhargava, that the funds of MPFC is a public fund and, therefore, it has to be protected; but at the same time it has to be taken into consideration; not only that but it has to be kept in mind that in any case the industrial units, which have been generating products, by giving financial aids and by granting limits and permitting the units to utilize it, should be left but by bringing total property, assets to zero and addition of unemployed persons. For that purpose the amicable settlement have to be sought, thought and at any rate fair chances are to be given to the units which are finding it very difficult to cope up with the schedule of the repayment initially chalked out by the agreement. For that purpose the amicable settlement have to be sought, thought and at any rate fair chances are to be given to the units which are finding it very difficult to cope up with the schedule of the repayment initially chalked out by the agreement. ( 15 ) THIS has to be mentioned because in the present matter the same topic is being put in controversy. Agreement took place in view of the settlement. Appellants found it difficult to make payment within the stipulated period. However, they paid Rs. 40. 00 lacs that was accepted by MPFC and now when the appellants are unable to make further payments, MPFC has put the said units to auction and now intending purchasers have come forward for the purpose of purchasing the said units and properties for a sum of Rs. 29. 00 lacs. The loan which is to be recovered was a huge amount which was not so initially; but by addition of interest it grew and it jumped the figures which was behind the reach of units to repay. Thus, the appellants became the defaulters and were put to task. By taking appropriate action by MPFC in view of S. 29 of the Act, an agreement was brought in existence on account of settlement and a sum of Rs. 40. 00 lacs was to be paid by the appellants to the MPFC within a stipulated period. The appellants were unable to repay the same before stipulated period. However, they made it after some time and now they are coming with a prayer to recall the said agreement and to make the payment later on. Shri Sethi submitted that if said units are permitted to be sold in auction at the price of Rs. 29,00 lacs, the appellants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. We find substance in his submission though Shri Bhargava submitted that property is not worth more than that. Shri Bhargava implicitely indicated that on account of devaluation of the assets, the valuation of property held by appellants' units came down to the tune of Rs. 29. 00 lacs or near about it. He submitted that this can be maximum price which can be fetched in auction and, therefore, there is no alternative but to sell those properties in auction for a sum of Rs. 29,00 lacs and to get away from this entangled problematic affair. 29. 00 lacs or near about it. He submitted that this can be maximum price which can be fetched in auction and, therefore, there is no alternative but to sell those properties in auction for a sum of Rs. 29,00 lacs and to get away from this entangled problematic affair. He submitted that MPFC is afterall created for the purpose of public cause, and, therefore, it cannot be permitted to be engaged in such litigation for such a long period. ( 16 ) NEEDLESS to point out that when MPFC was claiming such a big amount from the appellants, it impliedly means that units are holding such assets which are more than Rs. 29,00 lacs. It cannot be said that the appellants are not intending to make payment of said amount which they are liable to pay. Had that been so, the appellants would have kept silence and would not have made payment of Rs. 40. 00 lacs though after stipulated period. It is necessary for such institution which are created for financial aids, to keep in mind that the industries or commercial concern who are generating products by providing help, should not be permitted to die on account of lack of funds or insufficient management or monetary need resulting into making the industries sick. It has to be kept in mind by all those institutions that unless the possession of the units are handed over to such defaulting debtors they would not be able to generate money enabling them to repay the amount which has been granted to them or sanctioned to them. Afterall, if such units are interested in protecting public funds, the public funds cannot be permitted to be wasted for such auction at lower price. It would not allow the industries to come up and there would be again an addition to sick industries. The "state" has created such financial institution for the purpose of securing healthy progress of the industries in all aspects. At least, for the purpose of protecting its funds, which was granted in the way of loan of sanctioned limits, has to be recouped, regained and it cannot be recouped, regained or stored unless the intending debtors are ready to pay or given fair opportunity of running their industries or concern for repaying the amount. Otherwise impliedly that would mean nipping out such industries from its baseroot itself. Otherwise impliedly that would mean nipping out such industries from its baseroot itself. ( 17 ) IN the present case the appellants are coming up with a prayer that they be permitted to make payment in the same style which were previously agreed before the learned single Judge. They are ready to pay the interest for the defaulting period. When that is so it shows that such industries should be given fair opportunity of repaying that amount and that cannot be done unless the possession of the units has been handed over to them. If the industries are not permitted to run industries from where they would be generating money enabling them to repay the amount such arrears amount could never be paid. But at the same time it cannot be permitted to happen that the appellants would be taking out the possession of the units, degenerating the assets and causing prejudice to the funds which have been utilized by MPFC for financing them. A balance has to be secured and, therefore, we pass the following order while deciding this appeal : ( 18 ) THE appellants are permitted to get advantage of the same agreement which was settled prior to the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, which has been assailed by this LPA. The amount of Rs. 40. 00 lacs which they have already paid, be adjusted suitably. The appellants have to pay sum of Rs. 10. 00 lacs within a month and after that payment only the appellants would get the possession of the units. After getting the possession of the units they have to run those units and they have to make payment of Rs. 20. 00 lacs within a period of one month thereafter, after getting posession of the units. Thereafter again a sum of Rs. 20. 00 lacs has to be paid by them to MPFC within one month and thereafter the remaining amount is to be paid by them within three months instalments. For making good the financial injury caused to MPFC by their default, the appellants are to pay interest for that period to MPFC on the amount of Rs. 40. 00 lacs which was in default in view of that agreement at the rate of 24% per annum. The remaining amount of settled agreement, which is to the tune of Rs. 110. 40. 00 lacs which was in default in view of that agreement at the rate of 24% per annum. The remaining amount of settled agreement, which is to the tune of Rs. 110. 41 lacs, is to be paid in view of the settled agreement. ( 19 ) MPFC is entitled to appoint an employee who would be acting as its representative at the sites of those units. His salary should be Rs. 4000/- per month. A new person should be employed because this Court does not wish to creat impediment in day to day working of office of MPFC. His employment would be strictly temporary and would be limited to that period only which would be connected with non-payment of payable amount by the appellants. Whenever the entire payment is made, his employment would stand automatically terminated. Before appointing such an employee, MPFC has to inform it to him clearly and in writing and has to obtain his signatures on such intimation letter. Said salary would be paid by the appellants and the appellants would be liable to pay interest on that unpaid salary if it remains to be so at the rate of 12% per annum. ( 20 ) THE appellants are hereby prohibited from selling, exchanging, gifting, removing, creating third party interest or alienating the assets of those mortgaged units in any way to prejudice the rights of MPFC to recover the said amount. The employee so employed as per order of this Court, would have a right to check the consignment coming out of the factory gates of those units so as to protect the interest of the MPFC and to see that no parts of machinery are being taken out or removed from the premises of those units. ( 21 ) THUS, appeal stands allowed with no order as to costs by setting aside the judgment and order which has been assailed by this L. P. A. Appeal allowed. .