JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned counsel for appellant-Corporation has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was liable to be set aside as the learned Single Judge has erred in referring the matter to the Chartered Accountant for carrying out the calculations. The dispute between the parties, should have been decided by the learned Single Judge itself, instead of referring the same to the independent Chartered Accountant as the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is a Government organization. 3. Learned counsel for M/s. R.S. Industries Rolling Mills Ltd. (later on changed as M/s. R.S. Infra-Transmission Limited) [hereinafter referred to as Company"] has submitted that the claim was raised by the Corporation after the expiry of limitation, i.e., after five years. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly referred the matter to the Chartered Accountant as the calculations involved in the case could have been only carried out by an expert. 4. Writ petition was filed by the Company challenging that the notice dated 19.11.1996, whereby Corporation, by invoking Section 30 of The State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had recalled the loan amount of Rs. 12,76,630/-. Order dated 11.02.1997, invoking power under Section 29 of the Act by the Corporation, had also been challenged, whereby Corporation had informed the Company that it will take over the possession of the assets on 28.02.1997. 5. After going through the pleadings of the parties, learned Single Judge observed that the following legal issues were involved in the case:- "This case raises a number of interesting legal issues :- (i) What is the nature, scope and ambit of section 29, 30, 31 and 32G of the Act? (ii) Whether limitation applies to section 29 of the Act, or not? (iii) Whether the RFC is duty bound to first invoke its power under section 31, then to invoke its power under section 32G and ultimately to invoke its power under section 29 of the Act, or not? (iv) Whether the power of the RFC in invoking sections 29, 31 and 32G is subject to judicial review or not? (v) Whether the letter dated 11.01.1989 tantamounts to a waiver under section 63 of the Contract Act or not? (iv) Whether the power of the RFC in invoking sections 29, 31 and 32G is subject to judicial review or not? (v) Whether the letter dated 11.01.1989 tantamounts to a waiver under section 63 of the Contract Act or not? (vi) Whether the RFC can narrow down the period of relief unilaterally without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, or not? (vii) Whether the RFC was justified in narrowing down the period for which relief in payment of penal interest was granted, or not? (viii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, the RFC was justified in invoking its power under section 29 of the Act or not? (ix) Whether the action of the RFC is in violation of section 24 of the Act or not? (x) Whether the action of the RFC is in violation of legitimate expectation or not? (xi) Whether the action of the RFC is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not? Section 29 of the Act reads as under:- "Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default.-- (1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof [or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation] or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the [right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concerns], as well as the [right to transfer by way of lease or sale] and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation. (2) Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers [***] under sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred [as if the transfer] had been made by the owner of the property. (3) The Financial Corporation shall have the same rights and powers with respect to goods manufactured or produced wholly or partly from goods forming part of the security held by it as it had with respect to the original goods. (3) The Financial Corporation shall have the same rights and powers with respect to goods manufactured or produced wholly or partly from goods forming part of the security held by it as it had with respect to the original goods. [(4) [Where any action has been taken against an industrial concern] under the provisions of sub-section (1), all costs, [charges and expenses which in the opinion of the Financial Corporation have been properly incurred] by it [as incidental thereto] shall be recoverable from the industrial concern and the money which is received by it [***] shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by it in trust to be applied firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and, secondly, in discharge of the debt due to the Financial Corporation, and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto.] (5) [Where the Financial Corporation has taken any action against an industrial concern] under the provisions of sub-section (1), the Financial Corporation shall be deemed to be the owner of such concern, for the purposes of suits by or against the concern, and shall sue and be sued in the name of [the concern.]" Section 31 of the Act reads as under:- "Special provisions for enforcement of claims by Financial Corporation.-- (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof [or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation] or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate repayment of any loan or advance under section 30 and the industrial concern fails to make such repayment, [then, without prejudice to the provisions of section 29 of this Act and of section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)] any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf, may apply to the district judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the industrial concern carries on the whole or a substantial part of its business for one or more of the following reliefs, namely:-- (a) for an order for the sale of the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the [Financial Corporation] as security for the loan or advance; or [(aa) for enforcing the liability of any surety; or] (b) for transferring the management of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation; or (c) for an ad interim injunction restraining the industrial concern from transferring or removing its machinery or plant or equipment from the premises of the industrial concern without the permission of the Board, where such removal is apprehended. (2) An application under sub-section (1) shall state the nature and extent of the liability of the industrial concern to the Financial Corporation, the ground on which it is made and such other particulars as may be prescribed." Section 32 (G) of the Act reads as under:- "Recovery of amounts due to the Financial Corporation as an arrear of land revenue.-- Where any amount is due to the Financial Corporation in respect of any accommodation granted by it to any industrial concern, the Financial Corporation or any person authorised by it in writing in this behalf, may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the State Government for the recovery of the amount due to it, and if the State Government or such authority, as that Government may specify in this behalf, is satisfied, after following such procedure as may be prescribed, that any amount is so due, it may issue a certificate for that amount to the Collector, and the Collector shall proceed to recover that amount in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue." 6. So far as Sections 29 and 31 of the Act are concerned, they come in the operation once the Company has committed a default. 7. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, Company had taken three loans from the Corporation, i.e., on 31.01.1980, 13.02.1981 and 30.03.1988. The total loan taken by the Company from the Corporation was Rs. 16,68,000/-. The controversy involved in the writ petition was with regard to penal interest chargeable on the first two loans amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively. 8. Learned Single Judge after considering the factual as well as legal position noticed that the Company was ready to repay the loan amount to the Corporation provided the period during which the unit had remained closed for the reason beyond the control of the Company, be excluded for calculation of penal interest. Admittedly, the unit had remained closed from November, 1982 till August, 1984. In view of the decision taken by the Corporation on 03.01.1989, penal interest for the said period was liable to be waived. 9. It was further noticed by the learned Single Judge that the Corporation had not taken any steps during the period from 04.07.1991 to 09.02.1996 to realise the debt owed by the Company. In view of the decision taken by the Corporation on 03.01.1989, penal interest for the said period was liable to be waived. 9. It was further noticed by the learned Single Judge that the Corporation had not taken any steps during the period from 04.07.1991 to 09.02.1996 to realise the debt owed by the Company. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the penal interest for the said period was also liable to be waived, as the Corporation itself had remained lethargic in its action. 10. Since, the question involved in the case remained with regard to the calculation of the exact amount owed by the Company to the Corporation, learned Single Judge appointed an independent Chartered Accountant, i.e., S.S. Bhandari and Company to make the calculations on the basis of the relevant documents submitted before it by the Company as well as the Corporation. The Chartered Accountant was directed to examine the relevant documents produced by the Company as well as the Corporation and thereafter, calculate the exact amount owed by the Company to the Corporation within a period of one month thereafter. Directions were also given by the learned Single Judge to the Chartered Accountant to waive penal interest for the period from November, 1982 till August, 1984 and the period from 04.07.1991 to 09.02.1996. Learned Single Judge ordered that the amount calculated by the Chartered Accountant would be final. 11. Since, in the present case, the dispute which had remained between the parties was only with regard to the calculation of the amount owed by the Company to the Corporation and the said amount could not have been calculated by this Court, learned Single Judge rightly ordered that the amount be calculated by independent Chartered Accountant on the basis of the relevant documents submitted by both the parties. In case, the Corporation or the Company had any objection with regard to the appointment of the Chartered Accountant namely S.S. Bhandari and Company by the learned Single Judge, they could have requested the learned Single Judge for appointment of any other suitable Chartered Accountant. Since, the Chartered Accountant was appointed by the learned Single Judge in the presence of the counsel for parties while passing the order, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality. Since, the Chartered Accountant was appointed by the learned Single Judge in the presence of the counsel for parties while passing the order, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, fair and equitable with a view to resolve the dispute between the parties. 12. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. 13. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed.