JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The dispute in this case arises on account of the manner in which a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was paid to the BSFC, has been credited in the petitioner's loan account. 3. From the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner had purchased an item of machinery from one Kolsite Machine Fabric Limited, Bombay, on hire purchase with finance obtained from the BSFC. The price of the machine was paid by BSFC to the supplier. Later, it was detected that the machine had some manufacturing defect. A dispute was raised by the petitioner against the supplier which ultimately went up to the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 11.12.1998 passed in Criminal Apepal No. 1313-1331 of 1998, the Supreme Court had directed the aforesaid supplier to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the BSFC and with a corresponding direction that the said amount shall be credited "towards the dues of the Complainant". In compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court, the supplier had deposited the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-with the BSFC by Bank Draft on 3.2.1999. Thus, as per the direction of the Supreme Court, the BSFC was required to credit the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-towards the dues of the complainant/petitioner's outstanding as on the date of the deposit. 4. The dispute in the present writ application is because of the fact that the BSFC has proceeded to credit the entire amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the dues in respect of interest only and not towards the dues in respect of principal amount. It appears that initially, the BSFC had acknowledged in writing to the petitioner that the amount has been credited towards the principal, but later on, by the impugned letter dated 11.5.2007 (Annexure-9) and letter dated 19.6.2007 (Annexure-11), the respondent BSFC has declared that the amount has been adjusted against the accumulated interest on the principal amount. 5. The petitioner has taken objection to such manner of crediting of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as being arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the direction, as contained in the order of the Supreme Court. 6. 5. The petitioner has taken objection to such manner of crediting of the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as being arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the direction, as contained in the order of the Supreme Court. 6. Counsel for the respondent BSFC would explain that the adjustment has been made towards the payable interest, in accordance with the guidelines laid down under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Section 29 of the Act deals with the situation where hypothecated properties are sold in auction and lays down guidelines as to how the sale proceeds are to be utilized for the purposes of satisfying the outstanding dues of the borrower. As per the guidelines, adjustment are to be made towards meeting the expenses for conducting auction and for other incidental expenses, etc. also. In the present case, the BSFC has no option but to comply with the directions as contained in the order of the Supreme court, in letter and spirit and according to the direction, the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- had to be adjusted towards the total outstanding dues of the borrower namely, the present petitioner, including the principal and interest, as it stood on the date of receipt of payment of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The BSFC cannot therefore resort to any other mode of adjustment other than what has been stipulated in the order of the Supreme Court. 7. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders (Annexures - 9 and 11) are set aside. The respondent BSFC shall credit the amount of Rs. Rs. 2,50,000/- against the outstanding dues of the complainant, as it stood on the date when such payment was received and act accordingly in respect of further claim of remaining outstanding dues against the complainant / petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the One Time Settlement Scheme, as floated by the BSFC, is available to the petitioner only till 31st January 2010, the respondent BSFC may also be directed to make a proper correction, if any, in the loan account of the petitioner, in order to assess the principal amount and the amount of interest so that the petitioner may act accordingly. 9. 9. Considering the urgency of the matter, the respondent BSFC shall make the necessary correction in the loan account of the petitioner, as may be necessary, in the light of the direction contained herein-above, so as to enable the petitioner to comply with the requirement under the One Time Settlement Scheme. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent BSFC.