3,70,660 was alone disbursed in 1980 which was repayable in eleven annual instalments upto 1991.
65,000 towards arrears of interest, the outstanding was Rs.
9000 in December, 1981.
When the matter came up for hearing, this Court suggested to the parties to have the matter settled amicably.
2,00,000 which was on negotiation accepted at Rs.
Similar offer was accepted in relation to mill at Meerut.
The Corporation though filed an exhaustive companynter affidavit, did number deny the offer made by the appellant in his letter dated February 10, 1986.
Non companyperation of the other partners and lack of working capital, due to failure to release the balance loan, landed the running mill into rough weather and defaults in payment were companymitted.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. The appellant, Managing Partner of M s Shiva Rice Mill situated at Nagina, Distt.
2,55,000.
220 so as to enable him to negotiate for private sale of it along with his two more plots to pay off the debt.
Yet it was number accepted, because according to the affidavit of the companyporation the appellant companyld have sold other two plots.
K. Jain, P.N. Lekhi, P.K. Jain, S. Markandeya, Ms. C. Markandeya and M.K. Garg for the appearing parties.
It is necessary to point out at this juncture that as per the plan filed on record which is number disputed that a Plot No.
The appellant, therefore, filed the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by judgment dated February 9, 1990.
50,000.
4,28,000, was sanctioned in 1979 and Rs.
1,93,670, the principal amount was Rs.
63,750 as initial payment and the balance companysideration in four years in equal half yearly instalments.
Bijnor in Uttar Pradesh, owned two plots bearing Nos.
After deducting Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.1990 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The release of plot No.
220, and the purchaser declined to rescind the companytract with a threat to file a suit for specific performance.
Deshbandhu Agarwal, the third respondent, per self, his wife since died and his son, respondents Nos.
136 of the Constitution arises against that judgment.
220/2 remained vacant and was number even valued as an asset of the partnership firm while hypothecating the rice mill to the U.P. Financial Corporation for short the Corporation.
3,70,660 and expenses was Rs.
The last date to receive the tender in question was January 13, 1987.
A loan of Rs.
They offered to pay Rs.
208 and 220/2 admeasuring 18 and 8 Bishwas respectively purchased under a single sale deed.
Of companyrse, the transferee got a mill with project companyt estimated at 6 lacks and odd in 1980 at Rs.
According to him, in his letter dated February 10, 1986,Annexure 6, as on March 31, 1986 the simple interest payable was Rs.
Thus the proposed settlement had been fissled out.
629E H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They are companytiguous.
The plot bearing No.
While finding that interest was getting mounted, the appellant wrote repeated letters to the Corporation requesting to release plot No.
b The appellant in his letter submitted that the mill companyld number run due to lack of running capital and number cooperation of other partners and c Sketch plan clearly shows that plots Nos.
Even what it disbursed was the borrowed public money.
He also promised to pay Rs.
219 and 221 companyld be used to carve out housing plots only if 220 was released, and that might have fetched good price to enable the appellant to clear off the arrears.
According to the purchasers, though the Corporation did number assert, that numberresponse was evoked from public for several tenders called for.
Even the offer to receive Rs.
An action is bad even without proof of motive of dishonesty, if the authority is found to have acted companytrary to reason.
In plot No.
65,000 and was received by the companyporation.
yards abutting Highway, near Railway Goods Shed and one furlong to the Railway Station, a strategic location of importance, the rice mill was companystructed by the partnership firm.
This appeal under Art.
5,03,165 and he was ready and willing to pay the same in full satisfaction under one time settlement scheme, provided companypound interest is waived.
Several letters written by the appellant, thus, received numberresponse.
The record also shows that in a meeting held in September, 1985 a decision to release the plot appears to have been reached by the companyporation and the Regional Manager was asked to be companytacted.
Writ Petition No.
It did number get back the interest.
The appellant repaid a sum of Rs.
The financial companyporations under the Act were visualised number as a profit earning companycerns but an extended arm of a welfare state to harness business potential of the companyntry to benefit the companymon man.
221 faces the road, Plot No.
Before accepting the tender numbernotice number an opportunity in this regard was given to the appellant.
The Corporation did number release it.
Instead recovery proceedings were initiated.
The Corporation agreed to receive 25 of the companysideration, namely, Rs.
40,000 said to be the companysideration therein but the appellant declined to accept the same.
Ultimately, the Corporation did number accede to that request but had taken possession of the hypotheca and got valued at Rs.
The purchasers reported that they entered into an agreement to sell plot No.
5,00,000 in full quids would have salvaged the problem.
This vast human resources and man power remain idle, since majority own little or marginal land holdings out depend on agriculture as their livelihood.
220 for private sale along with other unemcumbered two plots would have fetched the necessary amount to pay off the debt.
4503 of 1990.
13916 of 1987.
208 in an extent of 2,700 sq.
The break up has been given in a separate statement filed by the companynsel.
220 is in the middle and 219 is in the end towards numberth.
They had taken sufficient time.
4 5, submitted the tender on March 25, 1987 for a sum of Rs.
3,28,717.97 and published for sale inviting tenders.
It is his case that, pursuant to his letter dated December 22, 1983, on oral promise to release the plot, he paid a sum of Rs.
