Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.  As jointly prayed, the name of the respondent is required to be substituted on account of formation of Chattisgarh State and now it should be “Chattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation” through Deputy Chairman at Sector 4, LIC Campus Padari Road, Raipur.  It is allowed.  Title may be corrected and amended cause title may be filed today itself.

          The dispute related to execution of a compromise between the parties whereunder in terms of the letter dated 26^th March, 2001  for repayment of loan raised, Rs.7 Lacs were payable by the complainant/appellant/petitioner to the respondent corporation.  Out of the said amount, Rs.3,50,000/- were to be paid on 31^st March,

2//

2001 and balance of Rs.3,50,000/- was to be paid in April, 2001.  It was not in dispute that the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- payable                         till 31^st March, 2001 was duly paid.  In so far as second installment of amount was concerned, a post-dated cheque dated 30^th April, 2001 for a sum of Rs.3,50,.000/- was given.  The cheque could he encashed only on 21^st May, 2001 for it took some time in collection. 

The District Forum held that the complainant/appellant failed to pay the amount upto 31^st March, 2001 and thus, committed breach of the agreement and consequently, the complainant was liable to pay the amount for the delay between 30^th April, 2001 to 1^st May, 2001 and dismissed the complaint.

 On appeal filed by the complainant/appellant, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and directed the opposite party/respondent to return the title deeds without claiming any charges towards interest etc. from the complainant within a period of one month from the date of that order, failing which OP/Respondent would be liable to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.

3//

There is no dispute in between the parties that the title deeds have been released on 5^th March, 2004.   The relevant part of the letter Annexure R-3 reads as under:

“Sub:        Release of original documents

Dear Sir,

       As per order of the Hon’ble State Commission, please find enclosed herewith following original documents for your further needful action : -

1.    Original Agreement to create mortgage & loan documents duly executed & notarized on 6^th August 1991.

2.    Original Specific Deed of Hypothecation (unattested) duly executed on 6 August, 2991.

3.    Original General Deed of Hypothecatio0n (unattested) duly executed on 6 August, 1991.

4.    No Dues Certificate will issue after approval of Competent Authority.

       You are requested to furnish from DIC that the unit has run continue 5 years from the date of production and letter from your banker where you have availed cc limit, if not availed any Capital Subsidy and cc limit, an affidavit in this regard duly notarized may kindly be submit to this office.

       Thanking you.”

(Emphasis supplied)

          It is submitted that the aforesaid letter bears signatures of the counsel Sh. R. K. Bhawnani, Advocate and it also appears that he

4//

had received the original documents.  This letter was filed before this Commission on 21^st September, 2004.  The appellant/complainant had not disputed the contents of this letter meaning thereby that the documents had been received.

          However, it is mentioned in para 4 that No Dues Certificate would be issued after approval of the competent authority and there is nothing on record to indicate “Whether No Dues Certificate had been issued or not”.  It may be mentioned that the order of the State Commission did not contemplate any issuance of “No Dues Certificate”.  It only directed return of title deeds without claiming any charge towards interest etc.  This is one aspect.  Another aspect is that the conduct of the petitioner would itself show that “No Dues Certificate” would have also been received by the petitioner, otherwise an application would have certainly been filed by now before this Commission. Seeing issuance of No Dues Certificate, seeing the conduct and seeing that the order of the State Commission has been complied with and seeing also that the complainant had also failed to comply with the terms of the compromise and has also take advantage of the indulgence shown

5//

by the respondent by virtual extension of time  by one month, at least if not one month 20 days, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief.

          For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition stands dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.