( 1 ) THIS appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 24-9-2002 in W. P. No. 28238/2002. ( 2 ) THE brief necessary facts are that the appellant a Private Limited Company viz. , M/s. Kalpatharu Solvents Pvt. Ltd. , carrying on the business of manufacturing edible oils, with an intention to expand its business approached the respondent Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short 'ksfc') and borrowed loan to the tune of Rs. 90 Lakhs and another loan of Rs. 19. 12 Lakhs was sanctioned for establishment of small scale industry in 1982, subject to certain terms and conditions set out in the KSFC sanction communication letters dated 27-8-1992 and the respondents, in Mis C. No. 6/200 (Annexure-K to the writ petition), stood as personal guarantors for the repayment of loan amount in case of default and necessary documents were filed. As the appellant could not repay the loan amount in time, the KSFC issued a notice and seized the industry of the appellant. KSFC issued a further notice intimating that the assets seized would be sold in auction. The appellant, in reply to the notice, requested the KSFC not to proceed with the proposed auction, but the same was turned down by the KSFC and it also rejected the proposal for selling the assets for an outright sale consideration of Rs. 45 Lakhs in one instalment. However, the KSFC sold the assets of the appellant-company to one D. Shivaprasad, Managing Director of M/s. Mayura Coconut Industry for a sale consideration of Rs. 41 Lakhs on certain terms with regard to the payment of the sale consideration. The same was challenged by the appellant company in W. P. No. 28238/2002 seeking to quash the letter dated 11-5-2002 issued by the KSFC and the letter issued to the auction sale bidder dated 19-6-2002. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, refused to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition. The same was challenged by the appellant company in W. P. No. 28238/2002 seeking to quash the letter dated 11-5-2002 issued by the KSFC and the letter issued to the auction sale bidder dated 19-6-2002. The learned single Judge, by a detailed order, refused to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned single Judge despite specific contentions raised in the writ petition that the KSFC could not invoke the provisions of S. 29 of the Karnataka State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') when the KSFC had already initiated proceedings under S. 31 of the Act and that no opportunity had been given to the appellant before auctioning the property, has erred in dismissing the writ petition, and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills reported in (1994)2 SCC 647 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2151 ) the decision of this Court in Mysore Chest Care and Pain Therapy Centre (Private) Limited, Mysore v. State of Karnataka (2001 (5) KLJ 429) and the decision in M/s. Bags and Cortons v. Harayana Financial Corporation (AIR 1993 Punjab and Haryana 156 ). ( 4 ) WE have heard the contentions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the decisions relied upon by him. ( 5 ) AS per the terms of agreement, in case of default in repaying the loan amount, the KSFC can invoke S. 29 of the Act and also S. 31 of the Act to proceed against the defaulter and the liability to repay the loan amount is joint and several. ( 6 ) THEIR Lordships, in A. P. State Financial Corporation's case (supra), while considering the question, whether the Financial Corporation set up under S. 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act is entitled to take recourse to the remedy available to it under S. 29 of the Act even after having obtained an order or a decree after invoking the provisions of S. 31 of the Act but without executing that decree /order, answered the same in the affirmative holding that the Corporation has power to proceed under Ss. 29 and 31 of the Act. ( 7 ) SECTION 29 of the Act enable recovery of money due and also contemplates the procedure to be followed without intervention of the Court and S. 31 is in the nature of a provision for attachment before judgment and the said provision is without prejudice to the provisions of S. 29 of the Act and the Supreme Court had held that it is open to the Corporation under S. 29 of the Act to realise its dues in the manner prescribed therein notwithstanding any order obtained by it under S. 31 of the Act, and S. 29 is not controlled by S. 31 of the Act. Further, the Supreme Court has held that it is not desirable to pursue both the remedies simultaneously by the Corporation. However, there is no provision to abandon or withdraw the proceedings initiated under S. 31 at any stage and then take recourse to the provisions of S. 29 of the Act as there is no bar for the Corporation to take action under S. 29 of the Act once the proceedings have been initiated under S. 31 of the Act. It is also held that there is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may justify interference by the courts in exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assist it in not repaying its debts. The aim of equity is to promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the Corporation, which after advancing the loan takes steps to recover its dues from the defaulting party. It is further held that when exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must so act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith, as far as it lies within their power. Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law. Since the Legislature enacted Ss. 29 and 31 with a view to aid the Corporation to recover its legitimate dues etc. Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law. Since the Legislature enacted Ss. 29 and 31 with a view to aid the Corporation to recover its legitimate dues etc. , from the defaulting party, the saving clause in S. 31 of the Act, preserving the rights under S. 29 of the Act by giving up the pursuit under S. 31 at any stage of the proceedings is available to the Corporation. ( 8 ) AS per the facts culled out, it is not in dispute that the appellant has borrowed money from the KSFC and a term loan of Rs. 90 Lakhs and another loan of Rs. 19. 12 Lakhs was sanctioned for establishment of small scale industry in 1982 and the appellant committed default in payment of loan amount as per the terms of the agreement and despite opportunity given to the appellant, no payments were made, and therefore, provisions of S. 29 of the Act were invoked on 3-12-1999 itself and thereafter also opportunity was given to the appellant to repay the loan and notice was issued on 11-5-2002 stating that higher offer of Rs. 41 Lakhs had been offered and an opportunity was given to the appellant to bring a bidder for a higher rate. It is also seen from the record that the appellant did not choose to do so and went on protracting the proceedings and therefore, the proposal of the bidder was accepted by notice dated 3-12-1999. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not helpful. It is also to be seen that the proceedings under S. 31 (1) (a) of the Act was initiated on 27-2-2002 much after invoking the provisions under S. 29 of the Act on 3-12-1999 and therefore, in the present case the contention of the appellant that, since the Corporation had already initiated proceedings under S. 31 of the Act no provision could be invoked under S. 29 of the Act cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) THE learned single Judge has considered that the appellant was given an opportunity to bring the bidder for a higher rate and also considered the decision of the Apex Court in The State Financial Corporation and other v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills ( AIR 2002 SC 834 ) and has come to the conclusion that in the facts of the given case, it cannot be said that the Corporation is not fair to the petitioner and the learned single Judge was satisfied that no case was made out for any interference. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, the loan amount has not been repaid and the liability to repay the loan is joint and several as per the terms and conditions of communication letters of the KSFC, and as discussed, it is clear that the KSFC has in the first instance initiated proceedings under S. 29 of the Act on 3-12-1999 and the highest bid was Rs. 41 Lakhs, since it was unable to recover the full amount, proceedings have been initiated under S. 31 of the Act against the guarantors under S. 31 (1) (aa) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and the decisions relied upon by him are not helpful to him in the facts of the present case. ( 11 ) IN view of what we have discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the learned single Judge so as to call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .