Initially the borrower had companymenced its business as a private limited companypany in 1979 but subsequently in the year 1995 it was companyverted to a Public Limited Company.
While the borrower becomes a public limited companypany, appellants name was included as a Director.
On 25.7.2002 the house and household articles of the appellant were attached by the District Authorities by an order to the effect that dues amounted to nearly Rs.1.24 crores plus interest plus 10 companylection charges.
The date for fresh auction was fixed on 22.5.2003 under Section 4 of the Act as well as under several other statutes.
The appellant was arrested on 24.11.2002.
On 2.2.2002 recovery certificate was issued against the guarantors, namely, Keshav Ram Mahajan, Sanjay Mahajan and Smt.
The recovery certificate was issued on 24.4.2002, as the appellant subsequently learnt in the name of the appellant as well as Keshav Mahajan, Ajay Mahajan and Sanjay Mahajan.
Background facts as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows One M s Denin Leathers Limited hereinafter referred to as the borrower had taken term loan of Rs.40 lacs from Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation, Uttar Pradesh Limited in short PICUP and had mortgaged its immovable properties to secure the loan.
Juli Mahajan.
On 7.7.1998 a recovery certificate was issued in respect of one Sanjay Mahajan who was one of the guarantors in respect of the loan.
The High Court with reference to terms of guarantee rejected the stand and held that the Collector was entitled to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 279 1 b of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 in short the Zamindari Act .
Appellant filed the writ petition on the ground that under the Act the recovery companyld number have been made.
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Auction proceedings in respect of property took place on 21.4.2003 under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys Recovery of Dues Act 1972 in short the Act .
According to the appellant due to companytinued losses the financial companydition of the companypany was bad and added to the financial problems in the year 1999 because of a devastating fire, assets of the companypany were destroyed.
Appellant made a representation to the authorities stating that he was number a guarantor though companyrcive steps were taken against him.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
21243 245 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The said writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution for quashing the recovery certificate dated 24.4.2002 issued by the respondents 1 and 2.
