- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Rajiv Ratan for the Respondents.
(2.) THE Petitioner assails the sale of his hotel in favour of opposite party No. 2 which sale appears to be held for recovering the amount in default by the Petitioner towards loan advanced by U.P. Financial Corporation. Counsel for the Respondents opposing the writ petition says that earlier when recovery proceedings were initiated, the Petitioner filed writ petition bearing No. 2670 (M/B) of 2002 and another writ petition bearing No. 5826 (M/B) of 2003 was filed by Smt. Shyama Devi who was the guarantor of the loan advanced to M/S. Hotel Shiv Shakti, challenging the mode of recovery.
(3.) IN view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors. reported in : (2003) 2 SCC 455, a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.) was a member quashed the recovery proceedings initiated under the provisions of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, but since the Petitioners agreed and said that they want to make the payment of the amount due in installment, this Court further directed that Hotel shall deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/ - within two months from the date of judgment and on the aforesaid amount being deposited, the Hotel under attachment shall be released forthwith and the balance amount shall be deposited in 10 equal quarterly installments with upto date interest. The last installment shall cover the entire interest upto date. The first installment was to fall within Ist seven days of March, 2004. The Court also directed that in case the Petitioner -borrower commits any default in compliance of the aforesaid order in making payment within time schedule, benefit of the order would not be available to the Petitioner and it will be open to the Respondent to recover the entire amount in accordance with law.;