JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. (Oral):- The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern of one Shri Sis Ram who was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 14,12,000/- and working capital of Rs. 6,16,000/- on 10.03.1993. This loan was disbursed and in order to secure the repayment of the loan, a registered mortgage deed dated 13.10.1993 was executed qua the term loan and hypothecation deed dated 08.06.1994 qua the working capital limit. The petitioner is alleged to have defaulted and despite reminders dated 20.10.1994 and 04.05.1995 to pay the installments, the account was not cleared. The petitioner requested for reschedulement of the account which was accepted vide letter dated 08.12.1995. Even the rescheduled loan was not repaid which resulted in numerous communications and ultimately rescheduled loan was recalled vide letter dated 15.04.1997 calling upon the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding by 14.05.1997. The petitioner once again requested for rescheduling and the recall order was stated to have been kept in abeyance in order to see whether the petitioner adheres to the commitment but to no avail. 2. A notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short ‘the said Act’) was issued on 01.10.1997 and possession of the factory of the petitioner is stated to have been taken over on 21.10.1997. However, once again as per the request of the petitioner the loan was rescheduled but since that was also not paid a second notice under Section 29 of the said Act was issued on 30.12.1997 to once again the possession which was taken on 14.01.1998. 3. At the stage of taking over the possession, it is alleged by the respondents No.1 to 3, it was found that the entire stock of raw material, finished and semi finished goods, were missing and were not restored. An FIR was lodged. The unit was advertised for sale by giving wide publicity but nobody came forward to purchase the unit. Five attempts were made. On the sixth attempt respondent No.4 made a bid of Rs. 5.50 lacs which on negotiation was enhanced to Rs. 6 lacs and the bid was confirmed. 4. The first grievance of the petitioner in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanates from the value of the sale, as the security is stated to have been assessed as Rs. 5.50 lacs which on negotiation was enhanced to Rs. 6 lacs and the bid was confirmed. 4. The first grievance of the petitioner in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanates from the value of the sale, as the security is stated to have been assessed as Rs. 10.89 lacs though a number of machines and equipments were found missing. 5. It is the case of respondents No.1 to 3 that on taking steps to recover the balance amount against the collateral security being built up plot No. 8 (new Plot RZ-8B) situated at village Baindrpur, Delhi, known as Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, owned by Kulbir Singh it was found that the same had been sold surreptitiously and thus no recovery could be made from the collateral security. 6. The second prayer made by the petitioner is once again for rescheduling of the loan. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the steps taken by the State Financial Corporation for selling of the unit at the lower price as it was the sixth endeavour and there was no market for purchasing the same. This coupled with the fact that the stock and machines were found missing reduced the value which was realizable. On each occasion the petitioner was given an opportunity to bring a buyer but the petitioner failed to get any buyer with a higher price. The occasion for rescheduling of the loan does not arise in view of the facts and circumstances when the collateral security has also not been made available and learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 states that steps are being taken to recover the balance amount. 8. We thus find no reason to interfere while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------