JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly this case is being disposed of at the admission stage. 1. In substance, petitioner has challenged the demand raised by the respondents. 2. One M/s. M.K. (Steel) Industries took loan from the respondents for its industry. Ultimately, as the dues of the respondents was not paid, tenders were invited for sale of the said unit. Shri R.K. Choudhary, who is now one of the Directors of the petitioner-Company, was the highest bidder. The bid amount was increased on further negotiation and terms and conditions of sale were resolved Rs. 2.75 lacks was to be paid immediately and Rs. 2.75 lacks was to be paid before the documentation. The balance Rs. 12 lacks was treated as term loan to the petitioner on usual terms and conditions of the respondents and the same was to be repaid in 12 equal half yearly installments starting from June, 1985 and ending in December, 1990. The interest accrued on the said balance of consideration money (i.e. excluding Rs. 2.75 lacs paid initially) from the date of handing over possession till the date of documentation was also to be paid by the petitioner. Current rate of interest was to be charged on the balance amount/outstanding which could be revised by the respondents. Petitioner made payment as per the said agreement and it was put in possession of the unit on 2.11.1983. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that from the very beginning, petitioner is suffering due to the deliberate lapses of the respondents, for the reasons best known to them. After three months, of putting the petitioner in possession a letter was issued on 2.2.1984, asking to obtain draft sale deed. Referring to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, he submitted that the draft sale deed was not handed over on the purported ground of pendency of a writ petition being CWJC No. 1030 of 1984 (R) filed by the erstwhile owner M.K. (Steels) Industries, whereas it was filed on 16.8.1984 i.e. after more than six months of issuance of the said letter. Moreover, there was no stay and the same was dismissed also on 19.12.1984. Moreover, there was no stay and the same was dismissed also on 19.12.1984. He further submitted that in the subsequent writ petition (CWJC No. 420 of 1985) M.K. (Steels), got stay order only on 18.4.1985 and when it was vacated on 4.2.1988 the respondents sent the draft sale deed only by letter dt. 31.3.1988 i.e. after two months of the vacation of stay order and by the time, petitioner could receive it, the said M.K. (Steels) got stay again on 8.4.1988. He submitted that thus the respondents deliberately delayed the documentation. 3. He further submitted that on receipt of the draft sale deed, petitioner objected to the term with regard to the payment of liabilities of electricity incurred by M/s. M.K (Steels) Industries and also to the other term providing payment of half yearly installment of interest calculated at the rate of 14.5%. But without taking any decision on the said objections, the respondents continued calculation of interest in the manner it liked. As advised, petitioner intervened in the said writ petition (CWJC No. 420 of 1985) and prayed for vacating the stay. However, as ordered by this Court, petitioner deposited Rs. 7 lacks and Rs. 6 lacs in March and July, 1996. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by order dated 18.5.1999. 4. Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that even after dismissal of the said writ petition, respondents did not resolve the said objections and delayed the documentation, and on the other hand they issued the impugned notices raising wholly unjustified demands. He also submitted that due to non-completion of documentation, petitioner could not run its unit in full fledged manner. Petitioner was never at fault and thus it is not liable to pay interest from 2.11.1983 i.e. the date of taking possession till the documentation is completed. 5. Mr. Mehta submitted that the current rate of interest of the Corporation was 14.5% and the same has been charged accordingly from the date of putting the petitioner in possession. He disputed the contention of the petitioner that due to non-documentation, petitioner could not run its Industry in full fledged manner. However, with reference to para 6 of the affidavit filed on 6.5.2005, he submitted that petitioner is eligible for paying its dues under incentive scheme of the Corporation by waiving the penal interest (unpaid) of about Rs. He disputed the contention of the petitioner that due to non-documentation, petitioner could not run its Industry in full fledged manner. However, with reference to para 6 of the affidavit filed on 6.5.2005, he submitted that petitioner is eligible for paying its dues under incentive scheme of the Corporation by waiving the penal interest (unpaid) of about Rs. 18,65,566/- calculated on 28.2.2005 and other unpaid charges as per the terms of the incentive scheme of the Corporation dated 9.3.2003. With reference to paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on 7.4.2003, he submitted that the clauses about the liability of electricity dues of M/s. M.K. (Steels) Industries will be deleted. 6. From the materials brought on the record, it is clear that for the reasons best known to them, the respondents delayed the documentation for about 1 and 1/2 years till M/s. M.K. (Steels) Industries could get stay from this Court. In view of this lapse, the subsequent one, also become relevant when draft sale deed was sent after two months of vacation of the stay order, and by the time, petitioner received it, M.K. (Steels) again got stay. Further, the objection of the petitioner to the term regarding the liability to pay the electricity dues of M/s. M.K. (Steels) Industries is accepted by the respondents only during the pendency of this writ petition. Moreover, the dispute with regard to the rate of interest was also not resolved. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the respondents could not have unilaterally issued the impugned demand notices treating the petitioner defaulter. Further Mr. Mehta could not satisfy this Court about the basis for charging interest at quarterly rests. 7. However, as the petitioner has been running the Industry, may not be in the manner it liked, it cannot be held that petitioner is not liable to pay interest at all. However, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is expected that the respondents will take sympathetic approach while deciding the rate of interest. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue a revised demand. Interest will not be calculated at quarterly rests. As petitioner is not a defaulter, they will not charge penal interest. They will also take into consideration its incentive scheme dated 9.3.2003, and the payments made from time to time. The respondents will communicate the details of calculation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue a revised demand. Interest will not be calculated at quarterly rests. As petitioner is not a defaulter, they will not charge penal interest. They will also take into consideration its incentive scheme dated 9.3.2003, and the payments made from time to time. The respondents will communicate the details of calculation to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within two months. If the petitioner has got any grievance, it may represent before the respondents in that regard within one month from the date of receipt of such demand, on which a decision will be taken within six weeks after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by a reasoned order, in accordance with law. This Court can only wish that the parties should try to resolve this old dispute and complete the documentation, without any further delay. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.