JUDGMENT : ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the application for injunction are taken up for hearing together. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Company borrowed money from the respondent Financial Corporation. It appears that an aggregate sum of Rs. 54.61 crores approximately was taken on loan by the appellant-Company from the respondent-Corporation, starting from 2004-05. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 39.39 crores has been repaid by the appellant-Company to the respondent-Corporation on account of principal and a further sum of Rs. 20.88 crores approximately has been repaid on account of interest at the agreed rate. The total amount due to the Corporation from the appellant-Company as on date on account of principal is Rs. 15 crores approximately and along with interest, it would come to Rs. 60.28 crores approximately. 3. The appellant-Company made repayment of the loan till March 2017. It defaulted in paying the instalment that was due in March 2017 and the same was ultimately paid in June 2017. Thereafter, there has been no further repayment by the appellant-Company and it has defaulted in payment of three instalments till date. Each instalment consists of about Rs. 1.5 crores on account of principal. It is submitted by Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that as of date, the appellant-Company is in default of about Rs. 6.5 crores. This is not disputed by learned senior counsel for the appellants. 4. By reason of the default, the respondent-Corporation issued Notice under Section 30 of the State Financial Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) foreclosing the loan and upon failure of the appellant-Company to repay the outstanding amount as on that date, issued a Notice under Section 29 of the said Act for taking over possession of the assets and properties of the appellant company including management of the appellant company’s factory. 5. The appellant-Company moved W.P. No. 3101 (W) of 2018 before the learned Single Judge challenging the said Notice under Section 29 of the said Act. The learned Judge granted opportunity to the appellant-Company to state before the Court as to how and when and within what time the dues of the Corporation would be paid. No commitment could be made by the Company. The learned Judge granted opportunity to the appellant-Company to state before the Court as to how and when and within what time the dues of the Corporation would be paid. No commitment could be made by the Company. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no infirmity in the Corporation issuing the Notice under Section 29 of the said Act, as admittedly the writ petitioner-Company is a defaulter. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Company is before us by way of the present appeal. 6. Appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner-Company, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel submitted that the track record of the appellant-Company has been excellent. It has never defaulted before. It was because of the introduction of the GST regime and other factors, totally beyond the control of the Company including very severe monsoon, resulting in water-logging in the appellants’ factory that production at the appellants’ factory suffered a set back, as a result of which, the appellants have been in default. The default is not willful. The appellants requested for re-structuring of the loan. Without responding to such request, the Corporation has issued a Notice under Section 29 of the said Act and has taken symbolic possession of the appellants’ factory on 12th February, 2018 as was indicated in the said Notice. 7. Mr. Mukherjee submits that there are one thousand employees in the Company and if production is stopped at the appellants’ factory, the same will destroy one thousand families. The management of the appellant-Company is very serious about carrying on business and has all good intentions of liquidating its debts to the respondent-Corporation. Mr. Mukherjee submits that some time should be granted to the appellant-Company to make good the default. 8. Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel representing the respondent-Corporation submitted that the track record of the appellant-Company has not been that impressive. Cheques issued in repayment of loan in the past have been dishonoured. Further, sufficient opportunity was given by the Corporation to the Company to suggest a reasonable and realistic restructuring of the repayment schedule but the proposals given by the appellant-Company were completely unrealistic and did not reflect any serious or bona fide intention on the part of the appellant-Company to liquidate the Corporation’s dues. Mr. Kar submitted that the appellant-Company deserves no sympathy of the Court and the order impugned in this appeal should not be interfered with. 9. Mr. Kar submitted that the appellant-Company deserves no sympathy of the Court and the order impugned in this appeal should not be interfered with. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Apparently we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Admittedly the appellant-Company is in default. The respondent-Corporation has lent money to the appellant-Company which is public money and it is the duty and obligation of the respondent-Corporation to recover such money along with interest at the agreed rate. However, keeping in view, inter alia, the fact that the fate of about one thousand families will be sealed in the event the production at the appellant-Company is stopped, we pass the following order : 10. The appellant-Company shall pay to the respondent-Corporation by way of demand draft/banker’s cheque 50% of the amount due as on date by the end of February 2018. The remaining 50% of the amount for which the Company is in default shall be paid by demand draft/banker’s cheque by the end of March 2018. The respondent-Corporation shall not in any manner interfere with the business/production at the appellant’s factory till the end of March 2018 subject to the appellants complying with its obligation to pay the dues of the respondent-Corporation as aforesaid. In case, the appellant-Company fails to pay the first 50% by the end of February 2018, the respondent-Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law as it may be entitled to. The same applies, in case the appellant-Company fails to pay the second 50% of the outstanding amount. In case the appellant-Company pays the entire amount in default as on date by the end of March 2018 in the manner indicated above, the notice under Section 29 of the said Act shall stand withdrawn and cancelled. 11. We make it clear that in case of any further default of payment of current instalments, the respondent-Corporation shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 12. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant-Company has made a proposal for restructuring of the loan by way of a representation dated 7th February, 2018. Mr. Mukherjee prays that the Corporation should consider such proposal. We pass no such mandatory order, but this order shall not stand in the way of the Corporation considering such proposal. 13. Mr. Mukherjee prays that the Corporation should consider such proposal. We pass no such mandatory order, but this order shall not stand in the way of the Corporation considering such proposal. 13. Symbolic possession of the assets and properties of the appellants’ factory and/or other assets that the respondent-Corporation has taken shall continue until repayment of the defaulted amount by the appellant-Company to the respondent-Corporation. 14. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations contained in the injunction petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 15. The appeal and the application for injunction filed in connection with this appeal are, thus, disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.