41848 and 34059 of 1999.
During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, an advertisement for sale of the unit was issued by the U.P. State Financial Corporation.
1 and 2 to hand over the physical possession of the unit as per the companyditions of 30.11.98.
Whereas in the former only direction for stay of recovery proceedings was prayed for but in the writ petition filed by Vinod Kumar Agrawal recovery of possession of the unit was also prayed for.
41849 of 1999 .
34059/1999.
Inter alia on the premise that the appellant company had purchased some plants and machinery worth Rs.6.75 lacs from one of their financed units namely M s. Uttrakhand Woolen Yarn Udyog Pvt.
Valuation thereof was made and a sum of Rs.45,000/ was credited to the account of the appellant company.
IN CMWP No.
iii issue a writ, order or direction in nature of ad interim mandamus staying operation of the impugned recovery citation dated 31.07.99 issued by the respondent number4 against the petitioner.
By an order dated 31st March, 2003, on an oral prayer made on behalf of the appellants, this Court directed the respondents to permit the to have inspection of the plant and machinery and take photographs thereof, pursuant whereto an inspection was made and it was found as of fact that number only some plants and machinery were missing but the plant and machinery were also number being maintained.
In the said writ petitions following reliefs were prayed for IN CMWP No.
41.60 lakhs was disbursed to it by March, 1992.
b. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering the loan from the petitioners in pursuance of impugned personal recovery certificates dated 31.07.1999 Annexure 12 .
c. to issue a writ, order or direction in nature of ad interim mandamus staying operation of the impugned recovery citation dated 31.07.1999 Annexure 12 issued by respondent number5 against the petitioners.
a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned personal recovery certificate dated 31.07.1999 Annexure 12 passed by respondent No.1.
Some other amount was also disbursed by way of State Capital Investment Subsidy by the Government.
d. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent number to take any companyrcive methods against the petitioners such as arrest, attachment sale of their moveable and immoveable properties.
41848/1999 i issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 31.07.99 Annexure No.14 passed by the respondent number1.
Some letters were exchanged between the parties.
f. to award companyt of this petition.
Having regard to the interest of the parties, a fresh inventory was directed to be made by a judicial officer, who was to be numberinated by the District Judge, Dehradun.
Before embarking on the questions raised at the bar, we may numberice the basic fact of the matter.
47 lacs was sanctioned by it.
A recovery citation was also issued.
Ltd. of which Pradeep Kumar Agrawal is a Managing Director took loan from the U.P. State Financial Corporation Corporation .
However, entire loan was recalled inter alia on the premise that the companypany had companymitted defaults in paying the instalments.
However, in the meantime some machinery parts were found to be missing, although security guards had been posted in the said factory.
Appellant companypany intended to expand their unit.
iv issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent number to take any companyrcive method against the petitioner such as arrest, attachment sale of their moveable and immoveable properties.
M s. Everest Wools Pvt.
ii issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from recovering the loan from the petitioner in pursuance of impugned personal recovery citation dated 31.07.99 Annexure 14 .
34059 of 1999 and the other by Vinod Kumar Agrawal CMWP No.
The companypany applied for re scheduling of the loan and the same was granted.
Again some theft took place.
It applied for grant of loan to the respondent No.3, the Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment of U.P. Ltd. PICUP .
A sum of Rs.
An explanation, pursuant thereto, was submitted.
Ltd. and obtained financial assistance from PICUP, a numberice was issued by U.P. State Financial Corporation to the appellant asking for its response thereto failing which it was threatened that action under Section 29 of the 1951 Act would be taken.
Writ Petition Nos.
In its order dated 23rd April, 2007, this Court numbericed that an inventory of the plants and machinery had been prepared at the time when possession of properties belonging to the appellants had been taken over.
vii Award companyt of this petition to the petitioner against the respondents.
B. SINHA, J. Application of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 the 1951 Act vis vis the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 the 1972 Act is in question in these appeals which arise out of a companymon judgment and order dated 29th September, 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
Two writ petitions were filed, one by the companypany and three others, including Vinod Kumar Agrawal, CMWP No.
By reason of the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court, without going into the questions involved therein, inter alia, on a finding that the appellants had been trying to evade payment of the amounts under the personal guarantee bonds, which had been invoked by the PICUP, the recovery proceedings initiated by it cannot be stopped, dismissed the writ petition.
An order of stay was passed on 15th November, 2002 by this Court restraining the respondent for finalizing the sale.
vi issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos.
